The Comment to P. Nicolopoulos’s article “Multilevel crisis of the contemporary
society” (http://philprob.narod.ru/philosophy/Nicolopolus2.htm)
A. Voin
22.12 2011
Dear Philippos!
I read your article and
again saw that our positions
are close. But your works,
even though they belong to
the best of those that
were presented at last year's
World Philosophical Forum, have
some shortcoming connected with fact, that you
like other philosophers do not have possession
of the unified
method of justification of scientific theories, which I had developed
and about which I spoke a lot in my
speeches at the Forum. And
without of this method any
philosophy is, at best, wishful
thinking. For example, you call
for politicians and all other
citizens to be moral. You
do not specify
what kind of morals you
speak about. But some can
understand under moral sexual permissiveness,
and other - medieval asceticism. But even you
should articulate what moral you
have in mind,
why one would
have to accept
your moral norms, not those
offered by another philosopher. Consent can be
achieved only through using the
unified method of justifying by
all philosophers. Read my article “The
formation of public morals” placed on website
of the Forum
(wpf.unesko-tlee.org) and you
will see how futile were
all the talk
about morality, since the time
of Socrates and Plato to
the present day in the
absence of this same method
of justifying. One system of
morality was replaced by another
in the history
and this led to the
relativity of moral today. Norms
of moral become almost like
a fashion in clothes.
But
not only moral, but all
the things you write about
in your article
(as well as other philosophers
writing in their works) needs
to be substantiated
by a unified method of justifying.
For example, you write about
the need to recognize the
authority of intellectuals in society and the
community must be led by
the intellectuals, not politicians. But how do
you know who is really
an intellectual? Indeed, today there
are many people pretending to be intellectuals
and they have prestigious diplomas and enjoying
the fame, but in fact
are charlatans.
Only by using the
unified method for assessing the
validity of study scriptures of intellectuals can determine which
of them are
really intelligent, and who is
pseudo one. In a word, without
using a unified method of justifying
the whole philosophy became a drawing-room conversations that may lead to
nothing. And this is what
we have today.
Politicians have long ceased to
follow the doctrines of the
philosophers, and refer to them
only to decorate
their speeches.
Alexander
Voin