Marc asked in Arts & HumanitiesPhilosophy · 1 month ago

If what was achieved is no longer relevant, how was it ever relevant?

11 Answers

  • 1 week ago

    A 20-year-old wants to get laid.  An 80-year-old does not.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • "To everything there is a season..."

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 1 month ago

    Hii Marc 

    I am Rishab Shukla I am saying that because of The History Learning Site, 27 Mar 2015. 25 Apr 2020.

    Is the whole concept of political parties on the decline in the American political scenario? Is the nation moving away from parties to personalities as elections become more media responsive?

    During the Nineteenth Century, then two parties most associated with America had clear and defined roles so that both could be clearly identified as parties with a political function. Both the Republican and the Democrat parties controlled elections, organized Congress, and had government offices allocated to them. However, this century saw the peak of their power as since then and more so as the Twentieth Century progressed, their power at a national political level has decreased. The increase in the number of independent voters and the importance of the media have all lead to a decreased role for both parties.


    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • P
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    Perhaps it never was but that does not make it any the less important. Philosophy has an "academic" side one definition of which is "not of practical relevance, of only theoretical interest"

    However, many academic theories have led onto major useful developments which have led to great advances for humanity, eg nuclear power and mass transport (or more related to philosophy, ethics which provides a basis for organised society)

    On the historical front the pyramids as a means of preserving the remains of Pharaohs are no longer relevant today (relegated to an international tourist attraction). To the Ancient Egyptions hovever they were a key achievement and highly relevant to many aspects of their every day lives over a very long period

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 1 month ago

    Yes Marc there are "achievements (like keystones)"  that are "no longer relevant" and that people here who say that there are no achievements that are not relevant are mistaken. And THEY are the usual suspects... half hearted philosophers who

    go by the general name of "subjective commentators and philosophers" (there are 

    too many for me to name but I have in the past & reserve the same right in the future, where such people are mistaken about philosophy being some kind of

    "relative game" where the only thing that qualifies someone to call themselves

    educated in such subjective childishness is a little "historicism".. which is a 

    flimsy description or an incomplete answer about some past situation, a past

    objective problem.

    Take that problem of the mathematician Kurt Godel  (where the naive

    subjectivist says "this doesn't count" because a math problem ; but it 

    does is relevant to philosophy..).

    He famously showed -in 1932 I think- that the then main 3 math theories 

    being taught as in the forefront of knowledge were a mistake and that his

    arithmetic theory confirmed this.

    He was right & it that theory of his was proved to be so. But it didn't badly

    affect mathematics  at all ; in fact maths "moved on" which shows that

    although Godel is well understood (& still proven to be so) we may say

    that it is taught as "not relevant" whilst still being understood as THE

    MAIN achievement of that time, and as "only being relevant to maths" this

    is not so ; for it CORRECTED MATHS in that it successfully criticised

    all the known math at the time & this was it's achievement then. Also

    it is still used today BY Philosophers & even subjective philosophy

    commentators here like j153e & others who use to to describe their

    relativistic philosophy positions.

    I have described a similar math theory which has failed to gain such

    the same lofty heights as Godel's Proof (and consequent "Godelian

    numbers and the like), although you wouldn't know about it because

    people here & subjectivists out there are not interested in such things.

    (all they are interested in are theories & proofs like Godels & others

    which happen TO MAKE IT into such infamous sources like "Wikipedia").

    I myself did some study on another math problem to see if indeed it

    could have reached-the-heights of the above ; it was the problem of

    whether or not true random number series ever ended, and if they do

    (or did) where exactly that occurred.

    And I heard about the "famous findings" of the School started by the

    math genius Y. tom. Zhang who claimed to have stopped a (twin) Prime

    number series at the number 50 million, successfully. Then reversed

    it into an ORDERED series reducing back down to almost zero.

    And I don't have to tell readers here just how important & relevant that

    is to anyone interested in PHILOSOPHY, because of the implications

    say for "freedom" like that of freedom within "Artificial Intelligence" and

    all (increasing it Dangerously in order of magnitude enough to build

    then Supercomputers which could tell humans what-to-do & to control

    them in the process^).

    And so I looked into this problem even using Wikipedia to my delight 

    has quite some dats on all of Y. Zhang's work.

    There one can find that "due to the applied inner complexity" of the maths

    that there is no recording of the working-out of this theory ; which is

    quite odd seeing that other mathematicians have BEEN ABLE to confirm

    the results & even Gone On to progress Zhang's results themselves.

    All there in Wikipedia.

    Having heard nothing since from around FOUR years ago now it

    may be prudent to call this apparent achievement a "subjective failure",

    one prehaps of math but again like that of kurt Godel's example a

    relevant Philosophy one which is NO LONGER RELEVANT...

    To anyone possibly interested in philosophy & prepared to check these

    these things out ; and hopefully to successive students who, like those

    relevant math students who are likely to still being taught the same

    learning path of Zhang's School (a probable SUBJECTIVE learning

    path like that of crude philosophy & commentators too) and so

    would still be on something still relevant for them - though I refuse to

    totally believe it as something not relevant for us here in philosophy

    because of it's connection both with A.I. and with philosophy in 

    general... where such an historical type problem can be seen in a new

    light where that it is a crude-but-relevant problem, a "history problem"

    where those involved have found Real truth whereas in fact what they

    found was SUBJECTIVE truth rather like the achievements of subjective

    philosophers only - where such crude achievements are only BELIEVED

    rather that "looked into" and STUDIED. 

    For this is how many such philosophers & commentators in the philosophy

    category go about their business - take things much too much at "face

    value" and do Little WORK... reminding one of a child's education who

    IS ALSO TAUGHT TO TAKE Thing's at face value... learning-wise &

    so "philosophically too".

    I also wanted to talk about the achievement of Environmental understanding

    of Greta Thunberg and how and IF IT was ever relevant to Subjective

    philosophy (type) commentators here - especially the one's WHO NEVER

    seem able to comment upon her "emergency type" news, which of

    course if true would mean that lots & lots of people are being Actively

    misled and even-though-not-relevant would mean that people are being

    told "false facts" - falsity is the word in philosophy.

    And therefore a relevant but dangerous situation. 

    ^ reminded of this happening when seeing on Youtube for the first

       time a true story what happened when a computer programme

       was made to take-on a grandmaster of the game "Go", a board

       game of suitable large possible winning combinations. Anyway it

       WON against the best grandmaster, 4 to 1 I believe. The point is

       that it doesn't look like ANY Game cannot be susceptible to

       such computer intelligence WINNING OVER Human intelligence

       does it ?  Yet I still think we need not worry too much - the problem

       lies with the Fact That in PHILOSOPHY students & people have 

       been Taught-to-be afraid of this like general mistakes, mistakes

       which like successes are rare as they are FEARFUL ; for here they

       CAN BE used -in the study of objective philosophy- to help understand

       the nature of a problem like the one here called "Go". And it's

       almost insignificance in the meaning of relevant but necessary

       progress for humans (PROGRESS in human conditions, hence

       progress in humanly-relevant philosophy called "objective philosophy"

       it's reachable aims & of it's new method of getting at problematic

       descriptive truth. 

    • ...Show all comments
    • peter m
      Lv 6
      1 month agoReport

      The more I think about it the more that those involved working diligently to solve the problems should be "our heroes" so to speak. And should be remembered for that at least.. especially as the coming CO2 SATURATION problem could be an even BIGGER CRISIS.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 1 month ago

    There are stone arches in Europe still standing after over a thousand years.

    Pull the keystone and those arches will tumble into rubble.

    That does not erase the fact that the arch did, in fact, exist nor the importance of that keystone to it. 

    A thousand years from now when someone finds that keystone laying next to that pile of rubble, if they are educated and have historical perspective, they will still appreciate its relevance in context even centuries after its relevance to the arch has long passed.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 1 month ago

    There is no such thing as an achievement that is not relevant. Past achievements are what pave the path to the future.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Mike
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    The "perfect" vacuum tube was developed but became irrelevant when transistors were produced.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

     Relevance depends on the context of who, where, what and WHEN. 

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 1 month ago

    Because it fulfilled a need.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.