"Philosophy" in ordinary language is perhaps most often
meant to refer to a set of guidelines, precepts, or to an
attitude, such as in comments like "Jones' philosophy is not to
worry about the future" or "It is the philosophy of this company
that everyone should be able to take over for anyone else in
his/her department at a moment's notice; thus it is imperative
that you all learn each others' work as well as your own." Or
"Our philosophy is "all for one and one for all'." In the
movie Wall Street the philosophy of the tycoon Gordon Gekko
(played by Michael Douglas) is that "Greed is good." This
use of the term philosophy is sometimes referred to as a
"philosophy of life" or a "philosophy of business". It is
not related to philosophy in the sense of sustained, systematic,
reflective analysis of any topic.
A corollary to this usage is to characterize as
"philosophical" a specific attitude of acceptance,
acquiescence, or submission to whatever happens, perhaps
with some interpretive reason, as in "Jones took the news of his
dismissal quite philosophically; he said that if the boss didn't
want him there, it probably was a place where he wouldn't be
happy working long anyway." Or "Smith took the news of the
tragedy very philosophically; he said that was just the way life
was sometimes and that you had to just accept it and go on or you
would go crazy." Or "Johnson was philosophical about the
tragedy, saying "We just have to trust in God to know what is
best for all of us, even if it seems terribly sad at this time;
it must all be for the best ultimately.'" This also is not
related to philosophy in the sense of sustained, systematic,
reflective analysis.
A more recent usage that is perhaps becoming more and
more common is to equate philosophy with "mere idle speculation",
particularly as in "Rather than sitting around merely
philosophizing, we decided to do some actual empirical research
into the phenomena." Or "There is no point in thinking
about this philosophically; we need to find out what the facts
are." Or "You can do all the philosophy about the likely
result of this you want, but at some point you are going to have
to get out of your chair and actually see what happens when you
try to do it." In this sense, philosophy is equated with
the kind of pointless thinking about how many angels can dance on
the head of a pin; it is considered to be a waste of mental
energy, for no useful purpose.
Loosely associated with this view of philosophy is the
one that thinks philosophers are at best merely "book-smart"
people who have no common sense because they come up with
crackpot beliefs and ideas. While in some cases this may be
true, more often it is believed because it is not the reasoning
but only the conclusion that is looked at, and it is true that
many conclusions philosophers reach are counter-intuitive or odd,
or contrary to conventional belief. It is important,
however, not to look just at conclusions that people reach, but
the evidence and reasons they give for them. That is where
insights lie if there are to be any.
Thus, in a time of great economic, scientific, and
technological advancement, one might mistakenly believe that
there is no particular use for philosophy, because it deals with
intangible ideas, some seemingly crazy, which cannot be proved
scientifically or verified objectively, and which have nothing to
do with providing greater creature comforts or material
progress. Pragmatists may believe at any time that there is
not much use for philosophy and that philosophy is merely about
having opinions, opinions which are no better than anyone else's
opinions, and of no more value than idle speculation.
So what is the use of philosophy?
In the first, and narrowest, place, for some people
philosophy simply satisfies a personal need or interest.
Philosophy is, as it has always been, interesting in its own
right for that minority of people who simply like to think, or
who are by nature driven to think about, and who appreciate and
find great pleasure in discovering insights into, what seem to be
intangible or complex issues, great or small.
But the tools of philosophy can be important to everyone
because it potentially helps one think better, more clearly, and
with greater perspective about almost everything. There are
numerous specific topic areas in academic philosophy, many of
interest only to a few, even among philosophers, but there are
features and techniques common to all of them, and it is those
features and techniques which also can apply to almost anything
in life. These features have to do with reasoning and with
understanding concepts, and, to some small extent, with
creativity. Normally, all other things being equal, the
better one understands anything and can think clearly and
logically about it, the better off one will be, and the better
one will be able to act on that understanding and
reasoning.
Furthermore, philosophy in many cases is about deciding
which goals and values are worthy to pursue — what ends are
important. One can be scientific or pragmatic about
pursuing one's goals in the most efficient manner, but it is
important to have the right or most reasonable goals in the first
place. Philosophy is a way of scrutinizing ideas about
which goals are the most worthy one. A healthy
philosophical debate about what is ideal or which ideals ought to
be sought and pursued, is important. Efficiency in the
pursuit of the wrong values or ends is not a virtue. President
John F. Kennedy, in speaking at Amherst College on a day honoring
poet Robert Frost, said: "The men who create power make an
indispensable contribution to the nation's greatness, but the men
who question power make a contribution just as indispensable,
especially when that questioning is disinterested, for they
determine whether we use power or power uses us." And "When
power leads man towards arrogance, poetry reminds him of his
limitations. When power narrows the areas of man's concern,
poetry reminds him of the richness and diversity of his
existence. … for art establishes the basic human truths which
must serve as the touchstones of our judgement." I believe
philosophy could be added to art in these statements to form the
following: (1) The people who bring together power with purpose
make an indispensable contribution to the nation's greatness, but
the people who question power and any particular purpose
make a contribution just as indispensable, especially when that
questioning is distinterested, for they determine whether we use
power or power uses us, and they determine whether our purpose is
meaningful or our power misdirected. (2) When power narrows
the areas of man's concern, poetry and philosophy remind him of
the richness and diversity of his existence. … for art
and philosophy establish the basic human truth which must serve
as the touchstone of our judgment.
It is also important that beliefs and goals be examined,
even if they are idealistic; that is, even if society is nowhere
near ready to proceed from where they are to some idealistic
state. For it is important to know what is most reasonably
ideal, and to understand the reasons for thinking it is the
ideal, in order to try to make stepwise progress (as society is
ready to discover and accept any step in the right direction) and
in order to reassess what one thinks is ideal when unexpected
social responses show flaws or undesirable side-effect in the
concept. For example, welfare and housing for the poor have
often run into unexpected difficulties and in some cases have
been counterproductive to the desire to help people improve their
lives. While the basic goals of helping people escape
poverty and substandard housing in order to become productive,
secure, and hopeful about their lives may remain ideal, supplying
homes or money in certain ways may not be the effective means to
that, or may not be the equivalent to it as an end.
While science tests hypotheses by empirical means,
philosophical pursuit of values and ideals tests concepts of the
ideal in two ways: (1) by the debate of differing ideas and
values to see what seems most reasonable, and (2) by the constant
monitoring of the satisfactoriness and desirability of the stated
goal as socially acceptable steps toward it come into
place. Social progress toward an ideal often takes place in
small stages, and sometimes flaws in the ideal become visible as
the stages are implemented. It takes understanding of the
stated values, ends, and means in order to recognize
missteps.
However, it must be pointed out that there are people
trained in philosophy who do not think very well, at least not on
all, if any, topics. And there are people who have never
had any sort of philosophy or logic course who are quite astute
in their thinking in general. The study of philosophy is
something like the intellectual equivalent of training in
sports. Those with natural talent and no training will
often be better than those with training but little natural
talent, but proper training should develop and enhance whatever
talent most people have to begin with.
And it also must be pointed out that not all
philosophical writing or thinking is very good, and, perhaps more
importantly, not all philosophy courses are very well taught or
very good. In fact, there are a great many terribly taught
philosophy courses, where students come out having learned very
little and/or where they have mostly learned to hate what they
think is philosophy and consider it to be stupid. In some
cases, however, where teachers are entertaining and articulate,
students come out favorably impressed, but still with little or
no understanding. Neither of these kinds of courses serve
students or philosophy very well, though the latter are at
least more enjoyable than the former. So when I talk about
the uses of philosophy or about "philosophy" itself, I really
mean to be referring to the best of what philosophy has to offer,
not necessarily what one might learn in some particular
philosophy 101, or even upperclass or graduate level, course, and
not necessarily what one might find in a book chosen randomly
from the philosophy section of a university library or
bookstore.
The tools of philosophy are important to individuals and
to society because as long as we are not omniscient, factual
knowledge by itself is no substitute for philosophy, just as
philosophy is no substitute for factual knowledge.
Philosophy is about the intelligent and rational uses of
knowledge, and it is about the scrutiny of beliefs to see how
clear and how reasonable they are in the light of knowledge we
have. Knowledge is the substance of philosophy, not its
opposite. As I explain in "Words, Pictures, Logic, Ethics,
and Not Being God" because there is much we cannot know directly
or even by observation, much of our knowledge comes from our use
of reason. And philosophy, when done properly, perhaps more
than any other field, gives training and practice in the most
general and basic elements of reasoning. The essay
"Reasoning" explains what reasoning is, how it works, and why it
is important. It also explains that it does not always
yield the truth or knowledge, but that in certain circumstances,
it is the best we can do to try to attain knowledge. In
many cases, reasoning will show us what we need to find out in
order to have knowledge about a particular phenomena, by showing
us what the gaps are in the knowledge we have.
What underlies most philosophy — particularly perhaps
British and American philosophy — is training and practice in
(1) analyzing and understanding concepts, (2) recognizing and
showing the significance of hidden, unconscious, or unrealized
assumptions, (3) recognizing and remedying various forms of
unclear conceptualization and communication, such as vagueness
and ambiguity, which are often unintended and at first unrealized
(4) drawing reasonable conclusions from whatever evidence is at
hand, and (5) recognizing evidence in the first place — seeing,
that is, that some knowledge can serve as evidence for more
knowledge and is not just some sort of inert fact or end in
itself. These things are, or can be, very important for
science, social science, economics, business, and other practical
and empirical pursuits, but they are crucial for knowledge about
matters of value, interpretation, perspective, and that which is
intangible. It turns out that much of science, social
science, economics, and business contains elements of the
intangible, and questions about values, which can only be dealt
with philosophically. Moreover, even the most empirical
matters have conceptual components that require careful analysis
and understanding. The essays "Scientific Confirmation,"
"Explanations and Pseudo-Explanations in Science," "Shedding
Light on Time: Learning and Teaching Difficult Concepts," and
"More About Fractions Than Anyone Needs To Know" exemplify
that.
It also seems to me that those who are most successful
at analyzing and understanding concepts would also be better at
teaching those concepts if (and perhaps only if) they also
understand what made those concepts difficult to analyze and
understand for them, and/or for others, in the first place.
Nobel physicist Richard Feynman had the view that if he could not
explain a concept or principle in physics in a way that a college
freshman who was interested in physics could understand it, he
probably did not understand it himself as well as he thought he
did. I think such understanding is often important or even
necessary for teaching well, but I am not sure it is sufficient,
because one might be able to understand a concept without seeing
why or how it might be difficult for other people to understand
it. Philosophers, or anyone who has analyzed concepts,
ought to have some advantage in teaching them, but that advantage
may not be sufficient to teach those concepts to others very
well. I have seen philosophers (and others) who were quite
good at doing philosophy, not be able to teach it to beginners,
simply because they left out too much in their explanations, did
not start at a basic enough beginning place, did not wait to see
whether there was comprehension before they continued from point
to point, did not appreciate how strange or difficult or complex
an idea was to the student, did not know how to get points across
not only logically but psychologically, and, in short, did not
know what groundwork needed to be done in order to help the
student understand and see the significance or meaning of the
explanation being given. My long essay "The Concept and
Teaching of Place Value" gives an explanation and an example of
how understanding a concept, and understanding and appreciating
the psychological difficulties of comprehending it, are necessary
for teaching it well.
Pervasive Philosophical Subject Matter
While the application of sytematic thought to any
avowedly practical enterprise such as science or business can be
productive, it is also unnecessary in the sense that much is
often accomplished without it, and what cannot be accomplished
without it is often not missed. It only seems important in
cases where practical matters come to an impass or where an idea
bears such great and obvious practical fruit that it cannot be
ignored.
But there are pervasive philosophical areas of life that
nearly everyone recognizes as important, though perhaps not
recognizing them as primarily philosophical in nature, and
perhaps not recognizing that they require deeper and more
sustained thought than is typically given to them, even by
supposed experts. These areas include ethics (moral
philosophy — including value and "meaning of life" issues),
logic or reasoning, religion or spirituality, aesthetics and
related quality of life issues, and political/governmental/social
philosophy, particularly for all those who have a part in
government and who are affected by it, including those able to
vote in a democratic or representative democracy. While
everyone has "opinions" or beliefs about many of these intangible
things, there are better and worse opinions, beliefs that are
more reasonable or less reasonable than others. Not all
opinions or beliefs are equal in quality or in value. One
opinion is not necessarily as good or as reasonable as another;
is not likely to withstand scrutiny or to be compatible with all
the evidence available.
Unfortunately in many cases, politicians, bureaucrats,
news commentators. idealogues, and the "man on the street" or a
majority of people polled", are considered to be experts in areas
of social/governmental philosophy, though they usually are not;
and ministers or church leaders are often thought to be
theologians (or philosophers of religion), which they are
not. So a natural hunger for philosophical wisdom is only
partially addressed, and not always in the most satisfying,
nutritious, or practically useful and advantageous manner.
Shallowness in these area is often sufficient as long as it
sounds good or seems deep to those who think less or who do not
think much for themselves at all. Still the issues are
philosophical ones, and they are often recognized as such, even
if most do not realize that there are better answers and better
ways of thinking about them than they are aware.
Moreover, most people seem to think they "reason" well
enough and that any argument that shows otherwise is merely
someone else's opinion, and does not need to be considered any
further than it takes to ignore, dismiss, or reject it. So
although these are areas where people could benefit from
philosophy, they usually do not, and do not care to. In
that sense philosophy is just of potential benefit. But it
is not unlike other, practical, areas of potential benefit that
are ignored. When the inventor of the Xerox (photocopy)
machine was looking for financial backing, almost all the large
business concerns of the day turned him down. The primary
reason given was that there was no need for copy machines; we
already had carbon paper to make copies of documents. Not
only have prominent inventions and scientific ideas been
rejected, but so have business ideas and management plans.
Many a successful enterprise has resulted from employees going
into competition with their former bosses who would not listen
to, or could not understand or appreciate, their ideas for
innovation.
Philosophy is about careful, sustained, and systematic
thinking. It is about a willingness to pursue the possible
truth and value of ideas and the evidence for them, no matter
what conclusions might result or how strange they might initially
seem. Philosophy does not always lead to truth or to ideas
of great value, but it can. It often has. And the
potential always exists. There is much yet to be learned by
the application of thought to what is already known or believed
to be known.
I say "what seem to be" intangible issues, because some
topics which start out as apparently intangible turn out to have
tangible and practical features and consequences. Physics
initially was called "natural philosophy" meaning philosophy of
nature or of the phenomena of the natural world, and seemed to be
primarily a theoretical enterprise. Social and ethical
philosophy can have profound consequences that make a significant
difference in the quality of life for an individual or for a
community. There are many specific subjects which start out
seeming to have no objective or tangible answers, but which, upon
reflection, do. In some cases, such as physics and parts of
social science, what starts out as philosophy, once it is seen to
have tangible, practical, and empirical aspects and
consequences, becomes science and is no longer considered part of
philosophy. Newton's Laws are based on certain
philosophical insights and perspective different from how issues
of motion and force were previously thought of. Einstein's
work on relativity stemmed in large part from his philosophical
analysis and understanding of what it means to tell that two
events occur "simultaneously". That analysis is spelled out in
great detail in his first paper on relativity, and is crucial to
the understanding of the theory.
To some extent reasoning also can sometimes foster
creativity, in cases where it points to thinking that is more
constricted, narrow, or confined than it might need to be.
Just seeing what the constrictions or boundaries are in a line of
thinking, can sometimes help you see how they should be eclipsed,
extended, or transcended. The fashionable phrase
today is for people to learn to "think outside the box", and
philosophers have been and continue to be, in many cases, those
who tend to think most outside the box and furthest.
Sometimes much too far for others to appreciate. And, in
general, when anyone tells you they want you to think outside the
box, they probably only mean to the extent they can fairly
immediately appreciate. If you go further than they can
appreciate, your ideas will not be considered creative,
inventive, original, and visionary, but wild, unrealistic,
impractical, idealistic, or foolish.
Conclusions
Philosophy is typically taught in one of three
ways. There is a fourth way that is better, but is
relatively rare. The three typical ways
are:
1) to use "classic" readings, such as works by Plato,
Aristotle, Kant, etc. 2) to use books that contain numerous
articles about particular, often 'contemporary', problems or
issues. Generally the articles somewhat disagree with each
other. Generally the editor has an introduction to each
section. 3) to use textbooks in which the authors explain
their views about what philosophy is and about what is true about
different issues. Some of these books also contain other
articles or passages from classic works, but those are in some
sense evidence for the author's views or they are in some way
secondary material.
The problem with the first approach is that the readings
tend to be meaningless to students at the introductory level, and
most teachers are no help in making them interesting or
meaningful to the students, or showing their relevance to
ordinary issues or to issues that would be interesting if
presented correctly or in an accessible way.
The problem with the second method is that class
sessions often turn into endless debates or simple bull sessions
where everyone presents fairly shallow opinions and no effort is
made by the teacher to analyze those opinions in a meaningful and
deeper way that actually helps students resolve differences and
come to deeper understanding.
I have not yet seen any textbooks of the sort in 3, that
were particularly interesting or enlightening or, in some cases,
even very good philosophical reasoning.
I think the best way to teach philosophy is to raise
issues in a way that makes them gripping to students, often by
Socratically asking questions that make problems and issues
puzzling, challenging, and stimulating to students, and then
asking other questions that help shape their answers and help
guide them to a deep and meaningful understanding of the
issues. When done well, this helps students develop ideas
which are similar to or which parallel many of the great
historical philosophical answers given to these issues.
Students may then be assigned reading, if there is time, or told
which works they may want to look up on their own which argue for
many of the views they have come to. At that point, many
students will be able to make much more sense of the classic
philosophical works and of the debates about contemporary
issues. They will more likely find the details interesting,
and they may even be able to shed some light of their own on
difficult problems and issues.
Philosophy being so well spread about today—within
reasonable limits, of course—it can be argued that no
problem arises in respect to philosophic communication. The
world, we said, is or is becoming "one world"; education,
including philosophic education, is strongly recommended on all
sides; technological progress makes for increasing production and
wider distribution of books, philosophic books included. Can it
then be seriously maintained that in a world where philosophy
enjoys such privileges, philosophy remains at bottom
uninfluential? Are not the complaints of philosophers about their
intellectual isolation another manifestation of their incurable
snobbishness?
I do not believe myself that philosophers ought to
complain. But if they want to complain, they have sufficient
reason to do so, for despite the number of philosophic chairs
still being supported—and perhaps still being
increased—and despite the number of philosophic books still
going to the presses, the presence of philosophy in the
contemporary world is barely perceptible. And, since in such a
world, philosophy, and for that matter, any creative intellectual
activity, cannot content itself, as it could in the past, with
being a minority affair, even if it is, and in all likelihood
will always be, produced only by minorities, the need to find a
way out of this situation is one of the philosopher's constant
worries. Philosophers have come to understand that if they want
to escape the fate awaiting today all those who pretend to ignore
the fact that the world is as it is, philosophic knowledge must
be imparted to large groups of people not only as a body of
academic information but also as a subject encompassing
fundamental human attitudes. This does not necessarily mean to
make philosophy, as it were, "popular." To manufacture books
entitled "Philosophy for the Millions" is one thing; to think
philosophically in terms that can have an impact on both the
sophisticated minorities and the philosophically unenlightened
majorities is another. To make philosophy a live issue for the
present time, the philosopher must therefore avoid two very
common risks: the risk of debasing philosophy by trying to talk
down to the public; and that of stifling philosophy by keeping it
confined in an ivory tower. The first risk is so conspicuous that
many tend to believe that it is the only one that counts. But the
second risk is so treacherous that few have thought of dodging
it. Speaking of art, and specifically of the art of the novel,
Dwight Macdonald, has written that "our taste may have been
corrupted not only by mass culture but also by its opposite." It
is my opinion that this sound warning could apply equally to
philosophy.
I do not wish to imply that all philosophers should
write in a popular vein, and still less that they ought to write
always gracefully. I only want to say that they should write in
such a way as to be "translatable" into various other levels of
understanding. Furthermore, a number of philosophers (including
some of the greatest) have, as Brand Blanshard has said,
"actually succeeded in making [philosophy] intelligible and even
exciting not only to the exceptionally gifted alone, but to a
wide public. Socrates talked it, and Plato wrote it, in a way
that some millions of readers have not been willing to forget."
And Berkeley, for instance, who was both profound and graceful,
could speak "'with the vulgar' without ceasing to think with the
learned."
It will be seen that, as far as communication to the
public is concerned, I am thinking of philosophy for the present
time as we may think of artistic achievements for all times,
namely, as something capable of being understood at very
different levels. As it happens with many works of art, it would
be desirable if philosophic thought were elaborated in such a way
that many different kinds of people could participate in it, each
one in his own way and according to his own capacities. The
treasures of philosophy need not be shared and shared alike;
rather they should be shared and shared differently. Philosophy
must not keep aloof from the public, but it must not stoop to
doing whatever the public wants it to do.
Philosophy—and, for that matter,
knowledge—must be sought for its own sake. It must not be
put at the service of extraneous interests. It must not be
pursued only because it is deemed to be "useful." Therefore,
philosophers should not boggle at difficulties. They should never
attempt to shun rigor, no matter how "unpopular" their writings
may become as a consequence. But they ought not to renounce the
possibility of communicating to the noninitiates the nature of
the problems with which they come to grips. They ought to do once
in a while what an increasing number of scientists are doing, and
quite successfully, in respect to their own work and their own
theories—which are quite as difficult to grasp as
philosophic theories and methods are.
There is little doubt that the common man of our time is
not entirely beyond reproach for his lack of interest in
philosophy; he has grown too much into the habit of thinking that
he can dispense with thinking. For the lack of philosophic
communication, however, I prefer to blame philosophers; after
all, the so called "common man" is much too busy with his own
affairs to have any urge, and even any time, to grapple with
problems that seem to him somewhat remote. Philosophers, on the
other hand, have no excuses; it is their business not only to
think but also to find the best possible ways to make their
thinking communicable. Now, it seems to me that they often fail
in this respect because they move along one of the two following
blind alleys: either they pay exclusive attention to questions of
philosophic procedure and make philosophy esoteric, or they pay
their respects only to the most general questions and hence often
turn philosophy into something nonphilosophical. Or to put it
otherwise: when philosophers get seriously into philosophic
business, they tend to deal with unimportant issues, whereas when
they deal with important issues they tend to become little
philosophical. As a consequence, philosophy has become in some
quarters a highly sophisticated exercise feeding upon itself, and
in some other quarters a series of slogans for ideological
warfare.
Philosophers of quite different temperaments and
convictions are now beginning to realize that philosophy is not
exclusively an intellectual exercise, nor is it only a vague
concern with "vital problems." Gilbert Ryle, for example, does
not refuse to discuss problems—or, as he prefers to say,
riddles—that may offer the opportunity of sharpening the
philosopher's mind. But he also likes "to discuss issues which
are more than riddles, issues, namely, which interest us because
they worry us; not mere intellectual exercises, but live
intellectual troubles." On the other hand, Walter Kaufmann
complains that both existentialists and analysts philosophize in
such a manner that any intelligent layman is likely to lose sight
of what is at stake.
The existentialists [Kaufmann writes] have tried to
bring philosophy down to earth again like Socrates; but the
existentialist and the analytic philosopher are each one only
half Socrates. The existentialist has taken up the passionate
concern with questions that arise from life, the moral pathos,
and the firm belief that, to be serious, a philosophy has to be
lived. The analytical philosophers, on the other hand,
insist—as Socrates did, too—that no moral pathos, no
tradition, and no views, however elevated, justify unanalyzed
ideas, murky arguments, or a touch of confusion. . . . But if the
feat of Socrates is really to be repeated and philosophy is to
have a future outside the academies, there will have to be
philosophers who think in the tension between analysis and
existentialism.
To ascertain whether and how philosophy can play a role
in present-day society is still not to determine what role
philosophy should play. Should it provide a rationale for human
conduct? Should it lay down a framework for straight, rigorous,
uncompromising thinking in all intellectual human endeavors?
Should it become an intellectual meeting-place even if it is at
the same time a cultural battlefield? I suspect that all of these
functions would be proper for philosophy, and that some of them
are, moreover, highly desirable. I do not believe, however, that
we ought now to compel philosophers to meet a new series of
requirements; the ones I have emphasized in the previous
statements will serve for the purpose. If he is to be faithful to
the society in which he lives, it will suffice for the
philosopher to give heed to the ideal of philosophizing that I
have already sketched. This ideal implies that philosophers must
struggle to ferret out rational truths that are accessible, in
varying degrees, to all men. The time philosophers spend on this
task will prove to be not only philosophically but also socially
productive, more productive, indeed, than the time some
philosophers devote to indicting "civilizations in decay," or
than the time some other philosophers waste in figuring out, for
example, what happens when a distraction makes somebody forget
his headache—whether, as it has been put, this makes his
head stop aching or only stops him from feeling that it
aches.
References
*http://www.garlikov.com/philosophy/uses.htm
*http://www.ferratermora.org/expo_ph_section.html
Post-Doctor Omar Gómez Castañeda,
Senior, Ph.D
Filósofo, Economista e Historiador
Latinoamericano
*Doctor en Filosofía,Distinción en
Filosofía Antigüa egresado de Belford
University,Humble,Texas,Estados Unidos en el año
2006.(www.belforduniversity.net/verification/).Graduate:
ID:RV414771-PASSWORD:44198958). *Miembro Asociado de la Sociedad
Venezolana de Filosofía, Caracas,Distrito
Capital(2006-Actualidad)
(cyoris[arroba]ucab.edu.ve).(Google:Sociedad Venezolana de
Filosofía). *Ex – Profesor Titular de la
Cátedra:"Historía de la Filosofía" en el
Diplomado en Filosofía dictado por el Departamento de
Capacitación Docente de la Universidad Fermín
Toro,Cabudare Barquisimeto,Estado Lara(2007-08).
*Investigador,escritor y asesor de temas
filosóficos(2006-Actualidad). *Creador del Grupo de
Filósofos en Facebook(2008) (www.facebook.com). *Miembro y
amigo a través de Facebook (www.facebook.com) de los
grupos de: Filósofos y Filósofas de
Facebook;Colegio "Hermano Nectario María",Valencia,Estado
Carabobo,Venezuela y Humanidades y Educación de la
Universidad Central de Venezuela.
*Grupo de Filósofos y Filósofas
*Filosofía y Más
*Filosofía Chile
*Filosofía Costa Rica
*Los Filósofos Antigüos
Publicaciones,Obras y Trabajos:*"Ensayo de la
interpretación filosófica del hombre universal
actual en la economía globalizada de finales del Siglo
XX".Esta obra está registrada como documento
público,ante el Ministerio de Justicia,Registro Subalterno
del Primer Circuito,Municipio Iribarren,Nº 20,Protocolo
3,del 24 de Octubre de 1997.Dirección:Calle 20,entre
Carreras 15 y 16,Torre David,Piso 12,Barquisimeto,Estado
Lara,Venezuela.Esta Obra también concursó ante el V
Premio de Investigación Filosófica Federico
Riu,auspiciado por la Embajada de España,la
Fundación Federico Riu y la Universidad Central de
Venezuela,Año 1998. :*Economía y
Filosofía:dos disciplinas sociales que se ocupan de los
problemas hombre y sus posibles soluciones.Artículo
alojado en Contribuciones a la Economía(www.eumed.net).
*Filosofía Antigüa,Material Compilado Universidad
Fermín Toro,Cabudare,Estado Lara(2006-2007).
*¿Qué es la Filosofía del Siglo XXI? alojado
en Contribuciones a la Economía Agosto,2007.Texto completo
en http://www.edumed.netce/207b/orgc-0708.htm y en
www.pensardenuevo.com. *¿Qué es Lógica
Filosófica? alojado en Contribuciones a la
Economía,Septiembre 2007.Texto completo en
http://www.edumed.net/ce/207c/orgc-0710b.htm.¿Por
qué es necesario conocer de filosofía en nuestros
días? alojado en la Red Pensar de Nuevo,Buenos
Aires,Argentina(www.pensardenuevo.org).
*La Filosofía de la Economía alojado en:
www.economicasunp.edu.ar/…/Gomez_Castañeda_Omar_Ricardo-La_filosofia_de_la_economia.pdf-Similares
*La meditación trascendental:Un instrumento
ó técnica para comprender los principios de la
Filosofía Antigüa Hindú en nuestros
días, alojado en el muro del Grupo de Filósofos
creado por el Post-Doctor Omar Gómez C,Senior,Ph.D en
Facebook(www.facebook.com),14 de Julio del 2008.Alojado
también en Zona
Económica(www.zonaeconómica.com), el 5 de Abril del
2009,a las 22:50. *La razón y la fé,alojado en los
muros de:Grupo de Filósofos, Filósofos y
Filósofas de Facebook,Colegio Hermano Nectario
María,Valencia,Estado Carabobo,Venezuela y Humanidades y
Educación de la Universidad Central de Venezuela en
Facebook(www.facebook.com),14 de Agosto del 2008.Alojado
también en la Organización Pensar de
Nuevo(www.pensardenuevo.org).
*La Filosofía China,alojado el 23 de Abril del
2009 en
www.zonaeconomica.com/omar-gomez-castañeda/filosofia-china,Buenos
Aires,Argentina.
*Filosofía japonesa,alojado en
pensardenuevo.org/filosofia-japonesa/-
*La Filosofía y Características de la
Sociedad Venezolana actual y sus
Perspectivas a principios de éste siglo
XXI,alojado el 14/7/2010 en
pensardenuevo.org/la-filosofia-y-caracteristicas-de-la-sociedad-
venezolana-actual-y-sus-perspectivas-a-principios-de-este-siglo..-
En caché-Similares.
*Ensayo sobre los Evangelios Gnósticos en
www.monografias.com.(2011)
*Influencia del pensamiento aristotélico en la
actualidad en www.monografias.com(2011) . El Cosmos(Nuestro
Universo),alojado en www.monografias.com(2011) .* La ética
y la moral,de elaboración propia.Trabajo donado a la
Biblioteca del IUTIRLA,Sede Barquisimeto,Carrera 24,entre Calles
24 y 25,Barquisimeto,Estado Lara,Venezuela,Año
2011.*¿Qué es lo eterno y qué es Dios? en
/trabajos85/que-es-lo-eterno-y-que-es-dios/que-es-lo-eterno-y-que-es-dios
y donado a la Biblioteca del IUTIRLA,Sede Barquisimeto,Estado
Lara,Venezuela,Año 2011.*La energía
geotérmica en:
/trabajos86/energia-geotermica/energia-geotermica.*El
Ente y el Ser en:
/trabajos87/ente-y-ser/ente-y-ser.
*Análisis de la sociedad venezolana actual y sus
perspectivas alojado en:
/trabajos87/analisis-sociedad-venezolana-actual-y-sus-perspectivas/analisis-sociedad-venezolana-actual-y-sus-perspectivas2
*Tales de Mileto,de elaboración propia y donado a la
Biblioteca del IUTIRLA,Sede Barquisimeto,Estado Lara,Venezuela.
iutirlalara@hotmail.com .Anaximandro de Mileto,de
elaboración propia y donado a la Biblioteca del
IUTIRLA,Sede Barquisimeto,Estado Lara,Venezuela.
Autor:
Post-Doctor Omar Gómez Castañeda,
Senior, Ph.D