Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

What really matters?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Rombomb
Posts: 1294
Joined: February 24th, 2013, 12:50 pm
Contact:

Re: What really matters?

Post by Rombomb » March 29th, 2013, 7:14 am

Rombomb What is another definition of historicism?
Londoner wrote: That events can be best understood by reference to the specific culture in which they occured, rather than as the result of some universally operating force...or just chance.

To put it very crudely, the French Revolution can best be understood by looking at the details of French society at the time, rather than as part of some law of inevitable human progression towards popular governments, (or as a chaotic spin-off from King Louis having had indigestion one night)

It is a considerable jump to go from this modest approach to understanding history to insisting:
I don't know why you're calling that historicism. But that's fine, so lets call what Popper refuted Hism. (See below for more on this.)
Because the evidence could be consistent with an infinite number of logically-possible theories. So if the evidence doesn't single out one theory that it supports, then that means that "support" is meaningless.
Londoner wrote: [That] applies equally to every theory.
No. Evidence rules out theories, leaving some untouched.
Londoner wrote: If we are never ever going to be able to find evidence that will 'single out one theory that it supports'
Right, no *single* piece of evidence will 'single out one theory that it supports'.
Londoner wrote: then in all discussions we are just going to have to settle for evidence that will 'support' a theory. You can call it 'meaningless', but it is all we are going to get!
No, we can use evidence and criticism to rule out all rival known theories.
So I think I'm with Taylor on this one. If we disregarded every approach that failed to irrefutably explain life, history, the universe etc. then we might as well give up the thinking business altogether.

Wait, why did you say 'irrefutably'? I didn't say that. You're created a straw man.
Londoner wrote: You said of historicism 'the evidence could be consistent with an infinite number of logically-possible theories'.
I didn't say that about historicism. I said that about evidence in general.
Londoner wrote: I responded that the same was true of any theory, that we cannot prove any approach 'irrefutably', since we can never have all the evidence and for other reasons. You replied to each of my points (philosophical truisms) 'So you agree with me'. So I don't see how this misrepresents you!
I thought you were saying that I'm advocating that we can have irrefutable evidence (or was it theories), I'm not sure. Anyway now I see that I misunderstood you.
Londoner wrote: So once again, I do not see why you dismiss the evidence for 'historicism' as 'meaningless' just because it cannot pass what (I think) we agree is the impossible test of being conclusive.
What evidence of historicism?

Note that by historicism, Popper talked about the version that he addressed, not the version that you mentioned. If you want, lets call Popper's historicim as Hism. Its Hism that he refuted, not the version of Historicism that you explained.

Hism is what Marx did. Marx, using the "laws" that he created, predicted that society will revolt against the rich and capitalism will fall. He used Hism as his logic. And Hism is false logic. It ignores the fact that people' decisions are affected by their ideas, and that in the future, we have *new* ideas. So creating laws from observation of past decisions and thinking that these laws will hold true in the future, is nonsensical because we can't predict the growth of knowledge.
We are all fallible -- anyone of us can be wrong about any one of our ideas. So shielding any one of my ideas from criticism means irrationally believing that I have the truth.

Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: What really matters?

Post by Londoner » March 29th, 2013, 10:21 am

I don't know why you're calling that historicism. But that's fine, so lets call what Popper refuted Hism. (See below for more on this.)
Well, I'm going by the definitions we can see in dictionaries, actual usage etc. If Popper wanted to refute something, it is a pity he didn't also call it 'Hism' rather than use a term that meant something else to most people who use it.

Besides, if you get to make up the argument you are going to refute, doesn't it give you a bit of an unfair advantage? Not that this practice is exactly unknown amongst philosophers...
Evidence rules out theories, leaving some untouched....no *single* piece of evidence will 'single out one theory that it supports'...No, we can use evidence and criticism to rule out all rival known theories.
I do not see this. What piece of evidence is of a strength to do this? As we have discussed, a piece of contrary evidence might be waiting around the corner. And the validity of any given piece of evidence rests on a whole set of assumptions.

To put it another way, I don't think real theories make the sort of absolutist claim you suggest. They are practical things; it is understood that they provide useful information within a particular context. 'Gravity' explains the action of falling objects - it does not claim that objects can do nothing except fall, or that gravity is sufficient explanation for all types of movement.

I think 'Hism' makes claims that no real theory would make, so it isn't a surprise that it can be refuted.
Hism is what Marx did. Marx, using the "laws" that he created, predicted that society will revolt against the rich and capitalism will fall. He used Hism as his logic. And Hism is false logic. It ignores the fact that people' decisions are affected by their ideas, and that in the future, we have *new* ideas. So creating laws from observation of past decisions and thinking that these laws will hold true in the future, is nonsensical because we can't predict the growth of knowledge.
I don't think Marx said anything of the sort, but I would draw a different conclusion from your example.

The point about Marxism (maybe), or Theism, or any one of a whole load of ideas is that they are not refutable by logic or evidence because the assumptions from which they are built account for all possible evidence. For example, you say Marx is wrong because 'people's decisions are affected by their ideas'. 'Ah yes', says the Marxist, 'but we've covered that. Their ideas are a reflection of their socio-economic situation...as explained by Marx'.

Since we are never going to be able to perform the experiment of seeing what ideas people in a feudal society, say, would have come up with if they hadn't been people in a feudal society, we are never going to be able to prove that their society did not create their ideas.

We can all think of similar examples. The Creationists who deal with fossil evidence by saying that since we know God created the world then the only possible explanation is that God created fossils. Again, there is no possible evidence that you could produce to convince them. You cannot prove that God does not exist. All you can do is point out that their whole argument rests on an assumption that He does, that they can't prove that either.

Ditto 'all life is a dream','we all live in The Matrix' etc.,etc.

Personally, I'm OK with that. I think the rational position is to say that Marx or God or The Matrix seem a reasonable way to understand certain things, or that they correspond in a satisfying way to our feelings about life, but accept that they are not susceptible to proof or dis-proof.

User avatar
Whythislife
Posts: 19
Joined: June 21st, 2013, 10:06 pm

Re: What really matters?

Post by Whythislife » July 5th, 2013, 10:44 pm

I think what really matters is having loving relationships with family and friends. Enjoying the moment is important to me as well as trying to be joyful about life, no matter how difficult it may become. What really matters to me is to live a life in which I am dedicated to helping and improving others' lives.

Samhains wrote,
This is not correct in the philosophy of the Buddha. The Philosophy of the buddha dictates this:

"To act from the self, and not for the self"

this is the act of love, and is the only true action that will bring peice of mind; thus bettering youself though action, action which is not for the self, but from the self -The True self.

We are part of the world, better the world around you, you better yourself. Cause and effect.[/quote]


I agree with Samhains. If we can better the world around us, we will also better ourselves. There are many examples of this. I equate this in my mind to living a life of service. For example, becoming a teacher will help improve the lives of others. I am not that familiar with Buddhism, but how do we differentiate actions from the self from action for the self? I suppose actions for the self only benefit the self, and not others. I see myself on a journey of trying to discover my true self.

User avatar
kk23wong
Posts: 119
Joined: June 28th, 2009, 4:23 am
Location: Hong Kong
Contact:

Re: What really matters?

Post by kk23wong » July 14th, 2013, 9:31 pm

What really matter is that you still breathing.

What really matter is that you still hearing.

What really matter is that you still speaking.

What really matter is existence.
I think, therefore I am. I am, therefore I can think.

For four years... I still insist that the Earth herself is conscious.

Or, at least, the mysterious voices guiding our prophets come from a subject - a subject that we call her the God.

The Conscious Earth is the final blow to philosophy.

Teru Wong

User avatar
Wuliheron
Posts: 422
Joined: May 27th, 2013, 2:02 am

Re: What really matters?

Post by Wuliheron » July 14th, 2013, 11:50 pm

What really matters is the punch line, which can only be described if you don't already get it.

User avatar
Gnomiad
Posts: 39
Joined: July 13th, 2013, 10:51 pm

Re: What really matters?

Post by Gnomiad » July 15th, 2013, 3:12 am

What really matters is e(ndo)th(erm)ics, me(a)taphysics and aes(pros)thetics.

User avatar
Bryce
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: November 28th, 2013, 10:10 am

Re: What really matters?

Post by Bryce » November 28th, 2013, 12:49 pm

Making the world itself feel good is what really matters so after everyone right nows death we all feel good. I mean making things feel good in any pratacal way like growing plants eating the plants and then having fun. Course I mean like scientificaly making dead things and plants feel good.Your existence is eternal love your existence.

Platos stepchild
Posts: 545
Joined: July 19th, 2014, 9:58 pm

Re: What really matters?

Post by Platos stepchild » July 31st, 2015, 7:58 pm

In order to know what really matters, we need to first be shorn of everything except life itself. It's surprising just how little is needed for life, compared to what we typically believe is needed. The thing is though, we can never truly be stripped bare. No matter how impoverished we become, there's always a little more which can be lost. A man whom we might otherwise deem to be desperate privately knows of some scrap of comfort, some amenity which must be protected from a callous world. I suggest these crappy and pathetic amenities are what really matters most; and, the crappier they are, the more highly they're valued.

User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: What really matters?

Post by Atreyu » August 1st, 2015, 1:00 am

Platos stepchild wrote:In order to know what really matters, we need to first be shorn of everything except life itself. It's surprising just how little is needed for life, compared to what we typically believe is needed. The thing is though, we can never truly be stripped bare. No matter how impoverished we become, there's always a little more which can be lost. A man whom we might otherwise deem to be desperate privately knows of some scrap of comfort, some amenity which must be protected from a callous world. I suggest these crappy and pathetic amenities are what really matters most; and, the crappier they are, the more highly they're valued.
I can really identify with this post. Good one. But if you could elaborate a bit more on what is highlighted red, it might make my Top 10 list....

Platos stepchild
Posts: 545
Joined: July 19th, 2014, 9:58 pm

Re: What really matters?

Post by Platos stepchild » August 1st, 2015, 2:03 am

[quote="Platos stepchild"]In order to know what really matters, we need to first be shorn of everything except life itself. It's surprising just how little is needed for life, compared to what we typically believe is needed. The thing is though, we can never truly be stripped bare. No matter how impoverished we become, there's always a little more which can be lost. A man whom we might otherwise deem to be desperate privately knows of some scrap of comfort, some amenity which must be protected from a callous world. I suggest these crappy and pathetic amenities are what really matters most; and, the crappier they are, the more highly they're valued.[/quote

disregard this ****.

-- Updated August 2nd, 2015, 6:11 pm to add the following --

After losing our home, my wife and I, along with our two children ended up in a seedy motel, euphemistically called the "Nasty Nine". We mourned the loss of many things. We suddenly had no privacy. The Nasty Nine was a small community of drug addicts, prostitutes, runaways and down-on-their-luck folks, like us. Pretenses, such as our middle class sensibilities were a death sentence. So, in order to survive, we had to traffic in the frank disclosures of our deeply personal secrets. That was the only way to engender trust with those whose friendship we needed. We'd lost the right to be indignant at what would'ave been egregious moral affronts in our old life. We'd lost our dignity, as well as the convenience of separate bedrooms.

I'd lost most of my personal library, my wife lost virtually all of her wardrobe, and the kids lost everything. We mourned the bric-a-brac which had littered our cozy home. We mourned the decency which still clung to us, like a fading scent. And then, suddenly we mourned the loss of the Nasty Nine. Our lives, there were precarious; but, at least we hadn't worried from one night to the next about where we'd sleep. Having run afoul of an extortion ring, operating out of the motel, we found ourselves at the door of a halfway house. We knew we'd be lucky to stay there for, at most a week. We got evicted after four days. We left the halfway house, walking straight into a deluge of heavy, cold rain. The roof of the motel had leaked, the roof of the halfway house leaked even more. The roof of the abandoned bus stop, where we eventually sheltered had a large hole in it. After getting run off by a crazed bum who claimed the bus stop was his home, we mourned the loss of yet one more roof.

Although our fortunes soon improved, I often wonder what hovel, what throw-away junk the loss of which we would'ave mourned had we continued to spiral ever downward. Shortly after having gotten chased out of the bus stop, I got into a scuffle with another bum over a half eaten candy bar. I'd be damned if I was going to mourn it's loss. I beat the living hell out of the man who threatened my children's next "meal". After he tumbled to the ground for the last time, I rifled through his tattered pockets, and found enough change to get a hamburger to split between my children. I'm not sure why, but breaking that desperate man's jaw was one thing I never mourned. So, did I ever find out what really mattered? This may seem odd; but no, I didn't. I love my children, and I loved my wife. But if our circumstances had continued to deteriorate, I might'ave had to choose between the one or the other. I might'ave even had to choose between either my son or my daughter. I'm glad I never had to find out what really matters. I believe that's a wisdom you never recover from.

Wayne92587
Posts: 1756
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: What really matters?

Post by Wayne92587 » March 20th, 2016, 2:06 pm

A substance like matter, for instance, that has physical properties.

Haicoway
Posts: 64
Joined: December 11th, 2014, 7:29 am

Re: What really matters?

Post by Haicoway » September 18th, 2018, 7:50 am

Since it seems rational to think that meaning comes from the brain, there are as many shades of meanings as there are sentient people. Therefore whatever an individual thinks about most would by common sense definition be what most matters to him or her.

While I was married for 51 years, my wife mattered most in the universe. She died of cancer. Now girls matter most, because I think most about them. Next are the other fruits of hedonism, such as opioids, fine wine, and great food.

User avatar
ameliaharry654
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: December 6th, 2018, 5:21 am

Re: What really matters?

Post by ameliaharry654 » December 6th, 2018, 5:26 am

Love the original post

Post Reply