"Philosophy" in ordinary language is perhaps most often meant to refer to a set of guidelines, precepts, or to an attitude, such as in comments like "Jones' philosophy is not to worry about the future" or "It is the philosophy of this company that everyone should be able to take over for anyone else in his/her department at a moment's notice; thus it is imperative that you all learn each others' work as well as your own." Or "Our philosophy is "all for one and one for all'." In the movie Wall Street the philosophy of the tycoon Gordon Gekko (played by Michael Douglas) is that "Greed is good." This use of the term philosophy is sometimes referred to as a "philosophy of life" or a "philosophy of business". It is not related to philosophy in the sense of sustained, systematic, reflective analysis of any topic.
A corollary to this usage is to characterize as "philosophical" a specific attitude of acceptance, acquiescence, or submission to whatever happens, perhaps with some interpretive reason, as in "Jones took the news of his dismissal quite philosophically; he said that if the boss didn't want him there, it probably was a place where he wouldn't be happy working long anyway." Or "Smith took the news of the tragedy very philosophically; he said that was just the way life was sometimes and that you had to just accept it and go on or you would go crazy." Or "Johnson was philosophical about the tragedy, saying "We just have to trust in God to know what is best for all of us, even if it seems terribly sad at this time; it must all be for the best ultimately.'" This also is not related to philosophy in the sense of sustained, systematic, reflective analysis.
A more recent usage that is perhaps becoming more and more common is to equate philosophy with "mere idle speculation", particularly as in "Rather than sitting around merely philosophizing, we decided to do some actual empirical research into the phenomena." Or "There is no point in thinking about this philosophically; we need to find out what the facts are." Or "You can do all the philosophy about the likely result of this you want, but at some point you are going to have to get out of your chair and actually see what happens when you try to do it." In this sense, philosophy is equated with the kind of pointless thinking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin; it is considered to be a waste of mental energy, for no useful purpose.
Loosely associated with this view of philosophy is the one that thinks philosophers are at best merely "book-smart" people who have no common sense because they come up with crackpot beliefs and ideas. While in some cases this may be true, more often it is believed because it is not the reasoning but only the conclusion that is looked at, and it is true that many conclusions philosophers reach are counter-intuitive or odd, or contrary to conventional belief. It is important, however, not to look just at conclusions that people reach, but the evidence and reasons they give for them. That is where insights lie if there are to be any.
Thus, in a time of great economic, scientific, and technological advancement, one might mistakenly believe that there is no particular use for philosophy, because it deals with intangible ideas, some seemingly crazy, which cannot be proved scientifically or verified objectively, and which have nothing to do with providing greater creature comforts or material progress. Pragmatists may believe at any time that there is not much use for philosophy and that philosophy is merely about having opinions, opinions which are no better than anyone else's opinions, and of no more value than idle speculation. So what is the use of philosophy?
In the first, and narrowest, place, for some people philosophy simply satisfies a personal need or interest. Philosophy is, as it has always been, interesting in its own right for that minority of people who simply like to think, or who are by nature driven to think about, and who appreciate and find great pleasure in discovering insights into, what seem to be intangible or complex issues, great or small.
But the tools of philosophy can be important to everyone because it potentially helps one think better, more clearly, and with greater perspective about almost everything. There are numerous specific topic areas in academic philosophy, many of interest only to a few, even among philosophers, but there are features and techniques common to all of them, and it is those features and techniques which also can apply to almost anything in life. These features have to do with reasoning and with understanding concepts, and, to some small extent, with creativity. Normally, all other things being equal, the better one understands anything and can think clearly and logically about it, the better off one will be, and the better one will be able to act on that understanding and reasoning.
Furthermore, philosophy in many cases is about deciding which goals and values are worthy to pursue — what ends are important. One can be scientific or pragmatic about pursuing one's goals in the most efficient manner, but it is important to have the right or most reasonable goals in the first place. Philosophy is a way of scrutinizing ideas about which goals are the most worthy one. A healthy philosophical debate about what is ideal or which ideals ought to be sought and pursued, is important. Efficiency in the pursuit of the wrong values or ends is not a virtue. President John F. Kennedy, in speaking at Amherst College on a day honoring poet Robert Frost, said: "The men who create power make an indispensable contribution to the nation's greatness, but the men who question power make a contribution just as indispensable, especially when that questioning is disinterested, for they determine whether we use power or power uses us." And "When power leads man towards arrogance, poetry reminds him of his limitations. When power narrows the areas of man's concern, poetry reminds him of the richness and diversity of his existence. … for art establishes the basic human truths which must serve as the touchstones of our judgement." I believe philosophy could be added to art in these statements to form the following: (1) The people who bring together power with purpose make an indispensable contribution to the nation's greatness, but the people who question power and any particular purpose make a contribution just as indispensable, especially when that questioning is distinterested, for they determine whether we use power or power uses us, and they determine whether our purpose is meaningful or our power misdirected. (2) When power narrows the areas of man's concern, poetry and philosophy remind him of the richness and diversity of his existence. … for art and philosophy establish the basic human truth which must serve as the touchstone of our judgment.
It is also important that beliefs and goals be examined, even if they are idealistic; that is, even if society is nowhere near ready to proceed from where they are to some idealistic state. For it is important to know what is most reasonably ideal, and to understand the reasons for thinking it is the ideal, in order to try to make stepwise progress (as society is ready to discover and accept any step in the right direction) and in order to reassess what one thinks is ideal when unexpected social responses show flaws or undesirable side-effect in the concept. For example, welfare and housing for the poor have often run into unexpected difficulties and in some cases have been counterproductive to the desire to help people improve their lives. While the basic goals of helping people escape poverty and substandard housing in order to become productive, secure, and hopeful about their lives may remain ideal, supplying homes or money in certain ways may not be the effective means to that, or may not be the equivalent to it as an end.
While science tests hypotheses by empirical means, philosophical pursuit of values and ideals tests concepts of the ideal in two ways: (1) by the debate of differing ideas and values to see what seems most reasonable, and (2) by the constant monitoring of the satisfactoriness and desirability of the stated goal as socially acceptable steps toward it come into place. Social progress toward an ideal often takes place in small stages, and sometimes flaws in the ideal become visible as the stages are implemented. It takes understanding of the stated values, ends, and means in order to recognize missteps.
However, it must be pointed out that there are people trained in philosophy who do not think very well, at least not on all, if any, topics. And there are people who have never had any sort of philosophy or logic course who are quite astute in their thinking in general. The study of philosophy is something like the intellectual equivalent of training in sports. Those with natural talent and no training will often be better than those with training but little natural talent, but proper training should develop and enhance whatever talent most people have to begin with.
And it also must be pointed out that not all philosophical writing or thinking is very good, and, perhaps more importantly, not all philosophy courses are very well taught or very good. In fact, there are a great many terribly taught philosophy courses, where students come out having learned very little and/or where they have mostly learned to hate what they think is philosophy and consider it to be stupid. In some cases, however, where teachers are entertaining and articulate, students come out favorably impressed, but still with little or no understanding. Neither of these kinds of courses serve students or philosophy very well, though the latter are at least more enjoyable than the former. So when I talk about the uses of philosophy or about "philosophy" itself, I really mean to be referring to the best of what philosophy has to offer, not necessarily what one might learn in some particular philosophy 101, or even upperclass or graduate level, course, and not necessarily what one might find in a book chosen randomly from the philosophy section of a university library or bookstore.
The tools of philosophy are important to individuals and to society because as long as we are not omniscient, factual knowledge by itself is no substitute for philosophy, just as philosophy is no substitute for factual knowledge. Philosophy is about the intelligent and rational uses of knowledge, and it is about the scrutiny of beliefs to see how clear and how reasonable they are in the light of knowledge we have. Knowledge is the substance of philosophy, not its opposite. As I explain in "Words, Pictures, Logic, Ethics, and Not Being God" because there is much we cannot know directly or even by observation, much of our knowledge comes from our use of reason. And philosophy, when done properly, perhaps more than any other field, gives training and practice in the most general and basic elements of reasoning. The essay "Reasoning" explains what reasoning is, how it works, and why it is important. It also explains that it does not always yield the truth or knowledge, but that in certain circumstances, it is the best we can do to try to attain knowledge. In many cases, reasoning will show us what we need to find out in order to have knowledge about a particular phenomena, by showing us what the gaps are in the knowledge we have.
What underlies most philosophy — particularly perhaps British and American philosophy — is training and practice in (1) analyzing and understanding concepts, (2) recognizing and showing the significance of hidden, unconscious, or unrealized assumptions, (3) recognizing and remedying various forms of unclear conceptualization and communication, such as vagueness and ambiguity, which are often unintended and at first unrealized (4) drawing reasonable conclusions from whatever evidence is at hand, and (5) recognizing evidence in the first place — seeing, that is, that some knowledge can serve as evidence for more knowledge and is not just some sort of inert fact or end in itself. These things are, or can be, very important for science, social science, economics, business, and other practical and empirical pursuits, but they are crucial for knowledge about matters of value, interpretation, perspective, and that which is intangible. It turns out that much of science, social science, economics, and business contains elements of the intangible, and questions about values, which can only be dealt with philosophically. Moreover, even the most empirical matters have conceptual components that require careful analysis and understanding. The essays "Scientific Confirmation," "Explanations and Pseudo-Explanations in Science," "Shedding Light on Time: Learning and Teaching Difficult Concepts," and "More About Fractions Than Anyone Needs To Know" exemplify that.
It also seems to me that those who are most successful at analyzing and understanding concepts would also be better at teaching those concepts if (and perhaps only if) they also understand what made those concepts difficult to analyze and understand for them, and/or for others, in the first place. Nobel physicist Richard Feynman had the view that if he could not explain a concept or principle in physics in a way that a college freshman who was interested in physics could understand it, he probably did not understand it himself as well as he thought he did. I think such understanding is often important or even necessary for teaching well, but I am not sure it is sufficient, because one might be able to understand a concept without seeing why or how it might be difficult for other people to understand it. Philosophers, or anyone who has analyzed concepts, ought to have some advantage in teaching them, but that advantage may not be sufficient to teach those concepts to others very well. I have seen philosophers (and others) who were quite good at doing philosophy, not be able to teach it to beginners, simply because they left out too much in their explanations, did not start at a basic enough beginning place, did not wait to see whether there was comprehension before they continued from point to point, did not appreciate how strange or difficult or complex an idea was to the student, did not know how to get points across not only logically but psychologically, and, in short, did not know what groundwork needed to be done in order to help the student understand and see the significance or meaning of the explanation being given. My long essay "The Concept and Teaching of Place Value" gives an explanation and an example of how understanding a concept, and understanding and appreciating the psychological difficulties of comprehending it, are necessary for teaching it well.
Pervasive Philosophical Subject Matter
While the application of sytematic thought to any avowedly practical enterprise such as science or business can be productive, it is also unnecessary in the sense that much is often accomplished without it, and what cannot be accomplished without it is often not missed. It only seems important in cases where practical matters come to an impass or where an idea bears such great and obvious practical fruit that it cannot be ignored.
But there are pervasive philosophical areas of life that nearly everyone recognizes as important, though perhaps not recognizing them as primarily philosophical in nature, and perhaps not recognizing that they require deeper and more sustained thought than is typically given to them, even by supposed experts. These areas include ethics (moral philosophy — including value and "meaning of life" issues), logic or reasoning, religion or spirituality, aesthetics and related quality of life issues, and political/governmental/social philosophy, particularly for all those who have a part in government and who are affected by it, including those able to vote in a democratic or representative democracy. While everyone has "opinions" or beliefs about many of these intangible things, there are better and worse opinions, beliefs that are more reasonable or less reasonable than others. Not all opinions or beliefs are equal in quality or in value. One opinion is not necessarily as good or as reasonable as another; is not likely to withstand scrutiny or to be compatible with all the evidence available.
Unfortunately in many cases, politicians, bureaucrats, news commentators. idealogues, and the "man on the street" or a majority of people polled", are considered to be experts in areas of social/governmental philosophy, though they usually are not; and ministers or church leaders are often thought to be theologians (or philosophers of religion), which they are not. So a natural hunger for philosophical wisdom is only partially addressed, and not always in the most satisfying, nutritious, or practically useful and advantageous manner. Shallowness in these area is often sufficient as long as it sounds good or seems deep to those who think less or who do not think much for themselves at all. Still the issues are philosophical ones, and they are often recognized as such, even if most do not realize that there are better answers and better ways of thinking about them than they are aware.
Moreover, most people seem to think they "reason" well enough and that any argument that shows otherwise is merely someone else's opinion, and does not need to be considered any further than it takes to ignore, dismiss, or reject it. So although these are areas where people could benefit from philosophy, they usually do not, and do not care to. In that sense philosophy is just of potential benefit. But it is not unlike other, practical, areas of potential benefit that are ignored. When the inventor of the Xerox (photocopy) machine was looking for financial backing, almost all the large business concerns of the day turned him down. The primary reason given was that there was no need for copy machines; we already had carbon paper to make copies of documents. Not only have prominent inventions and scientific ideas been rejected, but so have business ideas and management plans. Many a successful enterprise has resulted from employees going into competition with their former bosses who would not listen to, or could not understand or appreciate, their ideas for innovation.
Philosophy is about careful, sustained, and systematic thinking. It is about a willingness to pursue the possible truth and value of ideas and the evidence for them, no matter what conclusions might result or how strange they might initially seem. Philosophy does not always lead to truth or to ideas of great value, but it can. It often has. And the potential always exists. There is much yet to be learned by the application of thought to what is already known or believed to be known.
I say "what seem to be" intangible issues, because some topics which start out as apparently intangible turn out to have tangible and practical features and consequences. Physics initially was called "natural philosophy" meaning philosophy of nature or of the phenomena of the natural world, and seemed to be primarily a theoretical enterprise. Social and ethical philosophy can have profound consequences that make a significant difference in the quality of life for an individual or for a community. There are many specific subjects which start out seeming to have no objective or tangible answers, but which, upon reflection, do. In some cases, such as physics and parts of social science, what starts out as philosophy, once it is seen to have tangible, practical, and empirical aspects and consequences, becomes science and is no longer considered part of philosophy. Newton's Laws are based on certain philosophical insights and perspective different from how issues of motion and force were previously thought of. Einstein's work on relativity stemmed in large part from his philosophical analysis and understanding of what it means to tell that two events occur "simultaneously". That analysis is spelled out in great detail in his first paper on relativity, and is crucial to the understanding of the theory.
To some extent reasoning also can sometimes foster creativity, in cases where it points to thinking that is more constricted, narrow, or confined than it might need to be. Just seeing what the constrictions or boundaries are in a line of thinking, can sometimes help you see how they should be eclipsed, extended, or transcended. The fashionable phrase today is for people to learn to "think outside the box", and philosophers have been and continue to be, in many cases, those who tend to think most outside the box and furthest. Sometimes much too far for others to appreciate. And, in general, when anyone tells you they want you to think outside the box, they probably only mean to the extent they can fairly immediately appreciate. If you go further than they can appreciate, your ideas will not be considered creative, inventive, original, and visionary, but wild, unrealistic, impractical, idealistic, or foolish.
Conclusions
Philosophy is typically taught in one of three ways. There is a fourth way that is better, but is relatively rare. The three typical ways are:
1) to use "classic" readings, such as works by Plato, Aristotle, Kant, etc. 2) to use books that contain numerous articles about particular, often 'contemporary', problems or issues. Generally the articles somewhat disagree with each other. Generally the editor has an introduction to each section. 3) to use textbooks in which the authors explain their views about what philosophy is and about what is true about different issues. Some of these books also contain other articles or passages from classic works, but those are in some sense evidence for the author's views or they are in some way secondary material.
The problem with the first approach is that the readings tend to be meaningless to students at the introductory level, and most teachers are no help in making them interesting or meaningful to the students, or showing their relevance to ordinary issues or to issues that would be interesting if presented correctly or in an accessible way.
The problem with the second method is that class sessions often turn into endless debates or simple bull sessions where everyone presents fairly shallow opinions and no effort is made by the teacher to analyze those opinions in a meaningful and deeper way that actually helps students resolve differences and come to deeper understanding.
I have not yet seen any textbooks of the sort in 3, that were particularly interesting or enlightening or, in some cases, even very good philosophical reasoning.
I think the best way to teach philosophy is to raise issues in a way that makes them gripping to students, often by Socratically asking questions that make problems and issues puzzling, challenging, and stimulating to students, and then asking other questions that help shape their answers and help guide them to a deep and meaningful understanding of the issues. When done well, this helps students develop ideas which are similar to or which parallel many of the great historical philosophical answers given to these issues. Students may then be assigned reading, if there is time, or told which works they may want to look up on their own which argue for many of the views they have come to. At that point, many students will be able to make much more sense of the classic philosophical works and of the debates about contemporary issues. They will more likely find the details interesting, and they may even be able to shed some light of their own on difficult problems and issues.
Philosophy being so well spread about today—within reasonable limits, of course—it can be argued that no problem arises in respect to philosophic communication. The world, we said, is or is becoming "one world"; education, including philosophic education, is strongly recommended on all sides; technological progress makes for increasing production and wider distribution of books, philosophic books included. Can it then be seriously maintained that in a world where philosophy enjoys such privileges, philosophy remains at bottom uninfluential? Are not the complaints of philosophers about their intellectual isolation another manifestation of their incurable snobbishness?
I do not believe myself that philosophers ought to complain. But if they want to complain, they have sufficient reason to do so, for despite the number of philosophic chairs still being supported—and perhaps still being increased—and despite the number of philosophic books still going to the presses, the presence of philosophy in the contemporary world is barely perceptible. And, since in such a world, philosophy, and for that matter, any creative intellectual activity, cannot content itself, as it could in the past, with being a minority affair, even if it is, and in all likelihood will always be, produced only by minorities, the need to find a way out of this situation is one of the philosopher's constant worries. Philosophers have come to understand that if they want to escape the fate awaiting today all those who pretend to ignore the fact that the world is as it is, philosophic knowledge must be imparted to large groups of people not only as a body of academic information but also as a subject encompassing fundamental human attitudes. This does not necessarily mean to make philosophy, as it were, "popular." To manufacture books entitled "Philosophy for the Millions" is one thing; to think philosophically in terms that can have an impact on both the sophisticated minorities and the philosophically unenlightened majorities is another. To make philosophy a live issue for the present time, the philosopher must therefore avoid two very common risks: the risk of debasing philosophy by trying to talk down to the public; and that of stifling philosophy by keeping it confined in an ivory tower. The first risk is so conspicuous that many tend to believe that it is the only one that counts. But the second risk is so treacherous that few have thought of dodging it. Speaking of art, and specifically of the art of the novel, Dwight Macdonald, has written that "our taste may have been corrupted not only by mass culture but also by its opposite." It is my opinion that this sound warning could apply equally to philosophy.
I do not wish to imply that all philosophers should write in a popular vein, and still less that they ought to write always gracefully. I only want to say that they should write in such a way as to be "translatable" into various other levels of understanding. Furthermore, a number of philosophers (including some of the greatest) have, as Brand Blanshard has said, "actually succeeded in making [philosophy] intelligible and even exciting not only to the exceptionally gifted alone, but to a wide public. Socrates talked it, and Plato wrote it, in a way that some millions of readers have not been willing to forget." And Berkeley, for instance, who was both profound and graceful, could speak "'with the vulgar' without ceasing to think with the learned."
It will be seen that, as far as communication to the public is concerned, I am thinking of philosophy for the present time as we may think of artistic achievements for all times, namely, as something capable of being understood at very different levels. As it happens with many works of art, it would be desirable if philosophic thought were elaborated in such a way that many different kinds of people could participate in it, each one in his own way and according to his own capacities. The treasures of philosophy need not be shared and shared alike; rather they should be shared and shared differently. Philosophy must not keep aloof from the public, but it must not stoop to doing whatever the public wants it to do.
Philosophy—and, for that matter, knowledge—must be sought for its own sake. It must not be put at the service of extraneous interests. It must not be pursued only because it is deemed to be "useful." Therefore, philosophers should not boggle at difficulties. They should never attempt to shun rigor, no matter how "unpopular" their writings may become as a consequence. But they ought not to renounce the possibility of communicating to the noninitiates the nature of the problems with which they come to grips. They ought to do once in a while what an increasing number of scientists are doing, and quite successfully, in respect to their own work and their own theories—which are quite as difficult to grasp as philosophic theories and methods are.
There is little doubt that the common man of our time is not entirely beyond reproach for his lack of interest in philosophy; he has grown too much into the habit of thinking that he can dispense with thinking. For the lack of philosophic communication, however, I prefer to blame philosophers; after all, the so called "common man" is much too busy with his own affairs to have any urge, and even any time, to grapple with problems that seem to him somewhat remote. Philosophers, on the other hand, have no excuses; it is their business not only to think but also to find the best possible ways to make their thinking communicable. Now, it seems to me that they often fail in this respect because they move along one of the two following blind alleys: either they pay exclusive attention to questions of philosophic procedure and make philosophy esoteric, or they pay their respects only to the most general questions and hence often turn philosophy into something nonphilosophical. Or to put it otherwise: when philosophers get seriously into philosophic business, they tend to deal with unimportant issues, whereas when they deal with important issues they tend to become little philosophical. As a consequence, philosophy has become in some quarters a highly sophisticated exercise feeding upon itself, and in some other quarters a series of slogans for ideological warfare.
Philosophers of quite different temperaments and convictions are now beginning to realize that philosophy is not exclusively an intellectual exercise, nor is it only a vague concern with "vital problems." Gilbert Ryle, for example, does not refuse to discuss problems—or, as he prefers to say, riddles—that may offer the opportunity of sharpening the philosopher's mind. But he also likes "to discuss issues which are more than riddles, issues, namely, which interest us because they worry us; not mere intellectual exercises, but live intellectual troubles." On the other hand, Walter Kaufmann complains that both existentialists and analysts philosophize in such a manner that any intelligent layman is likely to lose sight of what is at stake.
The existentialists [Kaufmann writes] have tried to bring philosophy down to earth again like Socrates; but the existentialist and the analytic philosopher are each one only half Socrates. The existentialist has taken up the passionate concern with questions that arise from life, the moral pathos, and the firm belief that, to be serious, a philosophy has to be lived. The analytical philosophers, on the other hand, insist—as Socrates did, too—that no moral pathos, no tradition, and no views, however elevated, justify unanalyzed ideas, murky arguments, or a touch of confusion. . . . But if the feat of Socrates is really to be repeated and philosophy is to have a future outside the academies, there will have to be philosophers who think in the tension between analysis and existentialism.
To ascertain whether and how philosophy can play a role in present-day society is still not to determine what role philosophy should play. Should it provide a rationale for human conduct? Should it lay down a framework for straight, rigorous, uncompromising thinking in all intellectual human endeavors? Should it become an intellectual meeting-place even if it is at the same time a cultural battlefield? I suspect that all of these functions would be proper for philosophy, and that some of them are, moreover, highly desirable. I do not believe, however, that we ought now to compel philosophers to meet a new series of requirements; the ones I have emphasized in the previous statements will serve for the purpose. If he is to be faithful to the society in which he lives, it will suffice for the philosopher to give heed to the ideal of philosophizing that I have already sketched. This ideal implies that philosophers must struggle to ferret out rational truths that are accessible, in varying degrees, to all men. The time philosophers spend on this task will prove to be not only philosophically but also socially productive, more productive, indeed, than the time some philosophers devote to indicting "civilizations in decay," or than the time some other philosophers waste in figuring out, for example, what happens when a distraction makes somebody forget his headache—whether, as it has been put, this makes his head stop aching or only stops him from feeling that it aches.
References
*http://www.garlikov.com/philosophy/uses.htm
*http://www.ferratermora.org/expo_ph_section.html
Post-Doctor Omar Gómez Castañeda, Senior, Ph.D
Filósofo, Economista e Historiador Latinoamericano
*Doctor en Filosofía,Distinción en Filosofía Antigüa egresado de Belford University,Humble,Texas,Estados Unidos en el año 2006.(www.belforduniversity.net/verification/).Graduate: ID:RV414771-PASSWORD:44198958). *Miembro Asociado de la Sociedad Venezolana de Filosofía, Caracas,Distrito Capital(2006-Actualidad) (cyoris[arroba]ucab.edu.ve).(Google:Sociedad Venezolana de Filosofía). *Ex – Profesor Titular de la Cátedra:"Historía de la Filosofía" en el Diplomado en Filosofía dictado por el Departamento de Capacitación Docente de la Universidad Fermín Toro,Cabudare Barquisimeto,Estado Lara(2007-08). *Investigador,escritor y asesor de temas filosóficos(2006-Actualidad). *Creador del Grupo de Filósofos en Facebook(2008) (www.facebook.com). *Miembro y amigo a través de Facebook (www.facebook.com) de los grupos de: Filósofos y Filósofas de Facebook;Colegio "Hermano Nectario María",Valencia,Estado Carabobo,Venezuela y Humanidades y Educación de la Universidad Central de Venezuela.
*Grupo de Filósofos y Filósofas
*Filosofía y Más
*Filosofía Chile
*Filosofía Costa Rica
*Los Filósofos Antigüos
Publicaciones,Obras y Trabajos:*"Ensayo de la interpretación filosófica del hombre universal actual en la economía globalizada de finales del Siglo XX".Esta obra está registrada como documento público,ante el Ministerio de Justicia,Registro Subalterno del Primer Circuito,Municipio Iribarren,Nº 20,Protocolo 3,del 24 de Octubre de 1997.Dirección:Calle 20,entre Carreras 15 y 16,Torre David,Piso 12,Barquisimeto,Estado Lara,Venezuela.Esta Obra también concursó ante el V Premio de Investigación Filosófica Federico Riu,auspiciado por la Embajada de España,la Fundación Federico Riu y la Universidad Central de Venezuela,Año 1998. :*Economía y Filosofía:dos disciplinas sociales que se ocupan de los problemas hombre y sus posibles soluciones.Artículo alojado en Contribuciones a la Economía(www.eumed.net). *Filosofía Antigüa,Material Compilado Universidad Fermín Toro,Cabudare,Estado Lara(2006-2007). *¿Qué es la Filosofía del Siglo XXI? alojado en Contribuciones a la Economía Agosto,2007.Texto completo en http://www.edumed.netce/207b/orgc-0708.htm y en www.pensardenuevo.com. *¿Qué es Lógica Filosófica? alojado en Contribuciones a la Economía,Septiembre 2007.Texto completo en http://www.edumed.net/ce/207c/orgc-0710b.htm.¿Por qué es necesario conocer de filosofía en nuestros días? alojado en la Red Pensar de Nuevo,Buenos Aires,Argentina(www.pensardenuevo.org).
*La Filosofía de la Economía alojado en: www.economicasunp.edu.ar/…/Gomez_Castañeda_Omar_Ricardo-La_filosofia_de_la_economia.pdf-Similares
*La meditación trascendental:Un instrumento ó técnica para comprender los principios de la Filosofía Antigüa Hindú en nuestros días, alojado en el muro del Grupo de Filósofos creado por el Post-Doctor Omar Gómez C,Senior,Ph.D en Facebook(www.facebook.com),14 de Julio del 2008.Alojado también en Zona Económica(www.zonaeconómica.com), el 5 de Abril del 2009,a las 22:50. *La razón y la fé,alojado en los muros de:Grupo de Filósofos, Filósofos y Filósofas de Facebook,Colegio Hermano Nectario María,Valencia,Estado Carabobo,Venezuela y Humanidades y Educación de la Universidad Central de Venezuela en Facebook(www.facebook.com),14 de Agosto del 2008.Alojado también en la Organización Pensar de Nuevo(www.pensardenuevo.org).
*La Filosofía China,alojado el 23 de Abril del 2009 en www.zonaeconomica.com/omar-gomez-castañeda/filosofia-china,Buenos Aires,Argentina.
*Filosofía japonesa,alojado en pensardenuevo.org/filosofia-japonesa/-
*La Filosofía y Características de la Sociedad Venezolana actual y sus
Perspectivas a principios de éste siglo XXI,alojado el 14/7/2010 en
pensardenuevo.org/la-filosofia-y-caracteristicas-de-la-sociedad-
venezolana-actual-y-sus-perspectivas-a-principios-de-este-siglo..-
En caché-Similares.
*Ensayo sobre los Evangelios Gnósticos en www.monografias.com.(2011)
*Influencia del pensamiento aristotélico en la actualidad en www.monografias.com(2011) . El Cosmos(Nuestro Universo),alojado en www.edu.red(2011) .* La ética y la moral,de elaboración propia.Trabajo donado a la Biblioteca del IUTIRLA,Sede Barquisimeto,Carrera 24,entre Calles 24 y 25,Barquisimeto,Estado Lara,Venezuela,Año 2011.*¿Qué es lo eterno y qué es Dios? en /trabajos85/que-es-lo-eterno-y-que-es-dios/que-es-lo-eterno-y-que-es-dios y donado a la Biblioteca del IUTIRLA,Sede Barquisimeto,Estado Lara,Venezuela,Año 2011.*La energía geotérmica en: /trabajos86/energia-geotermica/energia-geotermica.*El Ente y el Ser en: /trabajos87/ente-y-ser/ente-y-ser. *Análisis de la sociedad venezolana actual y sus perspectivas alojado en: /trabajos87/analisis-sociedad-venezolana-actual-y-sus-perspectivas/analisis-sociedad-venezolana-actual-y-sus-perspectivas2 *Tales de Mileto,de elaboración propia y donado a la Biblioteca del IUTIRLA,Sede Barquisimeto,Estado Lara,Venezuela. [email protected] .Anaximandro de Mileto,de elaboración propia y donado a la Biblioteca del IUTIRLA,Sede Barquisimeto,Estado Lara,Venezuela.
Autor:
Post-Doctor Omar Gómez Castañeda, Senior, Ph.D