Relationships: Can't Live With 'Em, Can't Live Without 'Em

Most of us have had the thought of living on a desert island from time to time.  People just a mess and they make things so complicated.  So full of need, so demanding, so judgmental, so... different than ourselves.  And there are so many of them!  And yet we remain with people.  Most of us live in cities where thousands-- millions!-- of people are crawling over each other like ants, involved in customer relations, traffic, apartment buildings and the internet.

Why are we so involved with other people when it is so hard?  What kind of drive do we have that constantly draws us to more and different kinds of people?  Why are we attracted to the opposite sex when we know that they will act in an insane manner?  

How close do we need to get to other people?  Is intimacy significant, or can we live well with a number of casual relationships?  If we do not have intimacy can we be emotionally and socially mature? 

Do our relationships not only determine our activity, but our very identity?  If we were without any relationships would we be different?  What kind of personality would we have if we didn't have relationships? 

Why does it hurt so much to separate from another person with whom we have been deeply involved, whether it be a broken marriage or an estranged relationship with a sibling?  Why is grieving at the loss of a loved one so painful?  What is it that we are missing when we grieve?  

The Future of Philosophy: Neuroscience

Many new discoveries have occured due to advances in neuroscince.  Many items we have connected to a "soul" or a "mind" we have found places for in the ever-expanding brain. We found that the brain is much more complicated than we ever imagined, and our interpretations determine the reality around us.  There is no color, except in our brain, no sound except in our brain.  What does this mean for who we are and what is the place of interpretation in connection to reality? 

What is the center of self? Is the self completely embodied? If the self is completely embodied, then is the mind dependent on the well-being of the body?  Are all decisions embodied decisions?  Can decisions not be trusted if the body cannot be trusted? 

If the self is embodied, does it mean that the soul does not exist?  Can there be a soul without a body, a self without a body? 

Can a self be transfered to a different kind of body, such as digital, and it still be the same self? If changes are made in the body-- such as brain surgery-- does the same self exist, or is that self destroyed? If so, is that tantamount to murder? As a body grows and goes through major changes (for example, hormone shifts) does that self still exist?  Is our current self responsible for what a past self does, if that self changes?

Is the self only a similar set of memories?  But memories have been shown to be re-created by the brain... can memories be depended upon at all?  Is our self only reacting to a contextual fiction that we have created with others?  Does it matter what fiction we choose to live in? What is the best fictional narrative to exist in?  Is our contextual narrative dependent on our embodiment?

The Future of Philosophy: The Internet

Both philosophy and theology are dogs on a walk.  It looks like they are in the lead, but any major direction changes are directed by culture.  When we have new ideas, new experiences, major events, that changes the direction of thought in general and philosophy and theology are directed by these cultural markers.

So what questions might philosophy deal with in the next 50 years, given the state of things now.  I suggest that philosophy will be answering these sets of questions because of the direction society is heading in.

One of the areas that is changing everything is the internet.  It isn't just computers, rather the internet is changing how we relate to each other and how we understand relationships.

What is relationship?  Does relationship demand physical interaction? What is community?  Can community be something different than being in physical proximity?

 Is the lack of physical really spiritual?  Is, then, the internet spiritual connection? What is missing in relationship that does not have a physical connection?  Can a relationship be complete if you can see and hear and understand the person without ever touching them?  Do we obtain information about others outside of sight and hearing?  Is that information important?

What is "friendship"? What different levels of friendship is there? Can we be socially and mentally healthy when we have deeper connections with people whom we've never seen than those around us?

If "property" has no physical existence besides a pattern of electrons, can it truly be sold?  If intellectual property is spread throughout the internet, can it be owned?  What kind of ethical regulations determine property that cannot be held or kept under lock and key?

How does ethics change in an internet environment? Besides property, how does one care for another on the internet?  What is the responsibility of one when an idea on the internet turns into a crime in the "real" world?

How Do We Create Peace?

Peace isn't controversial.  Almost everyone wants peace.  We want to be without conflict, or major conflict anyway.  We want to be a peace with everyone.

But what is the context of peace?  How can peace be achieved?  That is the real conflict. Should we bring peace by having a standard culture which everyone adheres to? But those who cannot fit in will not feel peace, will they? Is it possible to have peace by allowing everyone to do whatever they want?  But what happens if someone wants to use their freedom to harm or even kill others?  That doesn't create peace at all. 

Can we create peace by making peace a prerequisite for one's own self interest?  For example, to grant everyone economic well being if they promote peace?  But we will always have idealists who will fight and kill for what they believe in. How can we encourage them to act for peace?

And what about people who are poor? If people do not have their basic needs met, will they ever accept peace before they have their needs met?  Wouldn't they more likely fight in desperation until their needs are met? Is a prerequisite to peace creating people's well-being first?  But how do we do that?

And what about the paranoid or the severely mentally ill who look to violence because they see reality differently than the rest of us?  Can they ever participate in a society of peace?  Can we have a society of peace that includes everyone without exception?  If not, who would be excluded?  And what would we do with those excluded?