Why have philosophers failed to have universal agreement about anything?
>>356030
because they'd lose their 'jobs' if they did
Philosophers are contrarians and maybe there is no universal truth.
>>356030
why have human being failed to have a universal agreement about anything?
>>356030
I didn't know /pol/ liked purple shirts.
>>356138
This.
When you get tenure, you can stop wearing the mask
Why have world leaders failed to have a universal agreement on anything?
Maybe we should stop having governments.
This is what you sound like.
>>356251
I never said that we should stop philosophy.
>>356323
1. There are things virtually all philosophers agree on. A lot of logic, epistemology, and similar things
2. For the other things why does general consensus even matter? If you have an art theory, a political theory, or just any sort of philosophical concept and it gets results isn't that what you should be looking at? Does the fact that there are rival philosophers with other theories invalidate it? It's like arguing that we should never discuss political theory because there will always a few anarchists that dismiss every notion.
>>356030
Philosophy isn't science or mathematics.
>>356482
Mathematics is philosophy
>>356493
Philosophy isn't mathematics
>implying
Here's the redpill:
People exist to achieve an universal goal and that is the perpetuation of the species. We want this unciounsciously, it's a primal drive common to all species.
But the thing is evolution made us all a lot different from each other. That means each one of us will think of a different strategy to achieve said goal. For instance, some might believe that because we have been succesful at breeding so far, traditions and order are to be maintaned. Others might think the path to be followed to achieve said goal is to keep pushing new social standards and breaking their limits to provide every individual with an everytime better lifestyle. What I'm saying is proven by several psychological analysis as those of Carl Jung, Freud and Myers Briggs.
Now this is where philosophy comes in. All these different points of view, these strategies we unconsciously think of to ensure the perpetuation of our species, imply on how we behave on our everyday lives. As previously mentioned, someone who believes order is the path will be considered conservative. Someone who wants to improve things will be considered liberal/libertarian, and so on.
Now, the greatest part is that all the strategies work. If everyone were to follow all these points of view, they'd all work, regardless of how different they are from each other, because what really matters is the fact we pass down our genes to upcoming generations.
So that's it. Basically because we have different approaches and strategies to dealing with things and when people try to express their feelings and strategies, they end up in a philosophical debate arguing which approach is more effective.
>>356537
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/calling-truce-political-wars/?page=1
>For example, in a study published in January, a team led by psychologist Michael Dodd and political scientist John Hibbing of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln found that when viewing a collage of photographs, conservatives' eyes unconsciously lingered 15 percent longer on repellent images, such as car wrecks and excrement—suggesting that conservatives are more attuned than liberals to assessing potential threats.
>Psychologists have found that conservatives are fundamentally more anxious than liberals, which may be why they typically desire stability, structure and clear answers even to complicated questions. “Conservatism, apparently, helps to protect people against some of the natural difficulties of living,” says social psychologist Paul Nail of the University of Central Arkansas. “The fact is we don't live in a completely safe world. Things can and do go wrong. But if I can impose this order on it by my worldview, I can keep my anxiety to a manageable level.”
>>356537
>redpill
Please leave.
>>356251
we should
>>356537
>>356616
This correctly answers why there is very little universally agreed upon. People have different victory plans and are trying to strengthen or weaken different parts of the society to do so.
Although an error is you mention it's all about preserving the species, preservation is just the lowest order of the Will to Power. People want to flourish not simply survive.
>>356537
evolution doesn't exist to do anything, it doesn't do anything on purpose and it doesn't work the way you think.
it's not a human intelligence hammering at you until you do what it wants. it's just an incomprehensible amount of time where life hasn't died out and some of it looks like us. it's equally functional to be successful and attractive or to care after your family or have all of your competition die out in great numbers in some calamity, if that's what ends up working.
it doesn't matter if you cut off your dick tomorrow, the one kid your distant relative had will be better than the fifteen some arab family has that all end up suicide bombing more brown people. you've effectively won just by fucking up less than someone else. and here's the thing, it's just not possible to predict this shit at a gene stage because all of it will affect everything around it. it barely did anything beyond the most basic for less social animals and it's completely broken for us. the only reason we exist is that we haven't died out yet.
the only thing saving your and everyone else's genes from doing something retarded and ending your line the next generation is that most genes that frequently cause that already did it a long time ago. there's no guarantee some otherwise inconsequential change in things won't trigger it, and it isn't likely to matter even if it did. evolution is not a precise instrument, nor is it a methodical one.
the "universal goal" of fucking is less some kind of primal drive and more like a very basic function of life, and it's had a lot of time to create very many things that might end up activating something that leads to it. there's no guarantee any of them end up working for you but everything that didn't have as many has had a lot of time to die by statistics.
>>356537
>What I'm saying is proven by several psychological analysis as those of Carl Jung, Freud and Myers Briggs.
So you vaguely cite 3 sources that are widely acknowledged as pseudo-scientific even among psychologists?
>All these different points of view, these strategies we unconsciously think of to ensure the perpetuation of our species, imply on how we behave on our everyday lives
Yeah, this really explains Schopenhauerian anti-natalism and deep ecologists who advocate for the extinction of the human race.
Because the world is immanent not transcendent
>>356537
I'm sure fucking glad Schoppy's metaphysics of love BTFOs this position of yours.
>>356030
Wouldn't be surprised it's because we as a species is pretty shitty at it.
>>356537
> Redpill
>What I'm saying is proven by several psychological analysis as those of Carl Jung, Freud and Myers Briggs.
Bretty good bait, I'm sure some people will fall for it. Now leave, /pol/, and take your shit-tier lingo with you.
