If what was achieved is no longer relevant, how was it ever relevant?
- All hatLv 71 week ago
A 20-year-old wants to get laid. An 80-year-old does not.
- 1 month ago
"To everything there is a season..."
- 1 month ago
I am Rishab Shukla I am saying that because of historylearningsite.co.uk. 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.
- PLv 71 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
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- peter mLv 61 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
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
- u_bin_calledLv 71 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.
- Mircea The YoungLv 71 month ago
There is no such thing as an achievement that is not relevant. Past achievements are what pave the path to the future.
- MikeLv 71 month ago
The "perfect" vacuum tube was developed but became irrelevant when transistors were produced.
- Anonymous1 month ago
Relevance depends on the context of who, where, what and WHEN.
- nevin0020Lv 51 month ago
Because it fulfilled a need.