Philosophy is Important

To the first question: Of course I consider modern philosophy to be philosophy! As stated in my second paragraph, I simply consider it to be in error. Great error at that - until the 20th century when at least some philosophers revisited Aristotle and Aquinas in the context of science and common-sense. This philosophy (classical realism) is an attempt to correct the errors made, as I stated. To the second question: yes, I consider most modern philosophy to be subjective. Again, as stated earlier, philosophy has been burdened by the conflict of those who have denied that the senses, or reason, or both, are useful to understand the world around us. Man cannot get to objective truth and knowledge without acknowledging that both are required. Without both the senses and man"s unique ability to reason, subjective information, decisions and actions are the outcome. Con asks if this is "a system of knowledge." Philosophy is defined as "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge [epistemology], reality, and existence [metaphysics]." My argument is based upon the application of this definition. If the result is an objective system of knowledge, then one of the fundamental goals of philosophy has been realized. The argument presented is the objective conclusion of many great Aristotelian thinkers over the centuries, but notably, excluding philosophical thinkers of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, in particular. Not until the 20th century, with the in-depth analysis of Mortimer J. Adler in particular, has Aristotelian philosophy reached a clear synthesis. I find it fascinating that Con chooses to argue this using a pseudo 'philosophy' based on misosophy, defined as "a hatred of wisdom or knowledge." While I applaud the idea of being skeptical about all things, including knowledge and wisdom, I reject Con's claim that "misosophy can just as easily be used as a system of knowledge that can rationally guide us." The very definition of misosophy is a contradiction to this claim. But, moving on to the challenge that I have not defined the core principles: Truth is a correspondence with reality Truth is Absolute- their are no degrees of Truth Truth is Universal- true for all if true for one Truth is Global- their are no cultural boundaries Truth is Timeless- true now if ever true and true forever Each of these is axiomatic. It is impossible to consider their opposite. If reality isn't true, it isn't real; if truth is real, it has to be so absolutely, for all people, in all countries, and forever true. Con's response to "This is common wisdom in philosophy," seems imply, that these self-evident claims are mere opinions. And how can Con, indeed anyone, conclude that "truth" and "absolute," could be contradictory? Truth is absolute. There are no degrees of truth. There ARE degrees of knowledge, which my post makes clear. But there are no degrees of Truth. Romantic? Goobleygook? Hardly! Let's be clear. There are very few absolute truths. "A whole is the sum of its parts; reality exists; nothing can both exist and not exist at the same time, for example (it is impossible to think of the opposite of what they assert). Evident truths on the other hand require reason and argument to defend. Most scientific conclusions fit this definition. I think that Con has confused absolute with evident truths. But, at Con's request, let me elaborate on self-evident and evident truths and "weak" and "strong" opinions: The scientific method is the perfect example: The scientific method is based on fundamental assumptions derived from Philosophy: there are laws of nature (truths) that can be understood my man. Reality is observed, hypothesis formed (opinions about an outcome), experiments and data collected, analysis performed, data interpreted and conclusions drawn (knowledge in the weak sense). Ultimately, results are published and re-tested by other scientists (peer review). Finally, if the hypothesis can be proven, we have knowledge in the strong sense of the term. For anyone who questions this line of argument, let me suggest that the next time you get on an airplane, think about the science - the physics of aerodynamics, just to choose one specific field. If you cannot accept that truth exists, I recommend that you get off of that plane before it takes off. Or, when you get into your car, think about the physics that gives us the knowledge to be confident that the small surface area of your disc brakes are enough to stop your 2-ton car before you crash into the car in from of you. On to Practical Truths: Con seems to be arguing that Practical Truth isn't possible because man (an individual man, appears to the the assumption), isn't timeless and universal. Philosophy"s concern here is not with man the individual but rather, with the concept of man as a representative of all mankind. So, my argument that we (mankind) need a Practical Truth based upon the same line of reasoning, or "as close to them as possible" to those developed for Truth about the world of reality, is a sound argument and a reasonable goal. My use of "as close to them as possible" should be your clue that this does not meet any definition of religious dogma. When we acknowledge that man alone uses reason to make judgements, it is a logical step to the concept that his judgments should be in his own best interest. To think that man the individual, or man as a member of a society (local or global), should make decisions that are not in man's best interest, is a contradiction. This is your non sequitur. Finally, since you ask, "The highest good is perfect being [of the individual]" means that man should be the best ['good'] he can be. Of course, we are talking both about the individual man as well as mankind. "Non-being is absolute evil" refers to the idea that it is evil (and a contradiction) for man to make choices that are not in the best interest of man.