[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>> lloyd, Now, nature goes to equilibrium. This seems plausible. In fact it's one of the few natural total laws that I believe to be true. Every person was different in the past, and is born different, but everyone is very similar today, everyone dies in the same way: independent of how we die, we all die, this is the same. But I don't see equlibrium something good, nor bad, it' is time. Time is adding things, making things happen. And as time goes by, equilibrium happens, that is, mor mbad thing sna dmore good things. Capitalism is getting very fast, so fast that each event is meaningless and ends up not happening. Communism is getting very slow, so slow that each event is never eachieved and nothing happens. They are for me not to ways to live, but to way sto die (as Heidegger described life).

Guille, ever since the dawn of time, the most difficult thing to recognize has been the irrational dis-equilibria that was actually the largest controlling entity of a particular era's history. As a few examples, who whould have thought to believe that Christianity could have taken over the logic of Egypt, Greece, Rome, at that time? Who would have believed at the time of the Renaissance that a few men's thoughts and ideas would put logic and science back on top of religion? At the founding of America, who at the time would have believed that common sense could have over-ruled the power of all the world's greatest powers, of the era? These are all examples of irrational expectations creating massive re-equilibriums of not only society, but global re-alignments of society. For anyone not to recognize the importance of equilibria and dis-equilibria, as one of the world's most important mathematical histories, I pitty us all.

I've heard of him a lot. But his philosophy is too formal, too practical in that sense. It's not usefull for a 21st century society. Why centreing a view of the world upon the system of value and organised manufacturing-trade? There is more to philosophy than that.

Guille, you'd be all alone on this one amongst economists. In my and many others opinions, Keynes' is by far still the most important economist in the world even today. No economic/philosopher of such stature has stepped to the plate to displace this one man's achievements and importance to the future, not even Nash, even though Nash's equilibrium and probability theories are a welcome addition to Keynes... And, without respect of the formal and practical, we're all going to hell in a hand-basket, on fire. There's no more to philosophy than the over-arching system of thought and or ideation, of all the world's great thinkers, and not just the ones, one personally chooses. If the world would do no more than integrate, Charles Sanders Peirce, John Maynard Keynes, and John Nash, we could do more to solving the world's problems than all other minds on this planet combined. A bit rash, yes, but that important. We must get back to real philosophy, as even mentioned by Plato, about his solution of international equilibriated money.

Now this ocmes back to the crisis it faces now. Philosophy has alwaysed been and is (I can't assure that it will be in the future, though) the most broad of all our mental tools. This is why it doesn't know where to go, how to be, or when, or who... Philosophy has been a child for 2,500 years, now it's become a teenager, and doesn't know it's place in society. Should it go near economics, with the prctical view of the things in capitalism (as Keynes and other economic theoretics propose)? Or should it go with sociology and history (as Lyotard and others propose)? or should it go with the neurosciences (as proposed by so many philosophers of mind like Dennet)? Or should it go somewhere else? Or should it get lost (as propoed by Carnap)? So many questions that it could occupy a a thesis for university. I'll think about it, but maybe when I'm there the problem of identity has dissapeared.

Guille, your teenager philosophy needs to become integral. It needs to achieve a deep centropic integrated view of all - a total vision-logic. As Godel mentioned, we need to define the concept of the concept. We must develop trans-finite reason and logic. In other words, we must perceive the truest mathematical/nature/technology/science concept with a much more thorough direct cognition. The ideation of true equilibria rules the future, or we're all dead!