Triadic Philosophy Asks: What Difference Does It Make

There is within philosophy a mass of exposition  of which one might ask What difference does it make With the best will in the world when one is talking about  how a thinker thought or how a thinker might think the burden of the protagonist should be to answer that question A difference is the distance between little or none or 'it has no general significance' to 'it makes all the difference in the world' because 'it has an effect on this or that and that is worth all this discussion' A value is placed on relevance
There are many quite radical applications of this criterion But my purpose is not to intruduce a negative element but rather to hammer away at the issue of purpose in discourse Triadic Philosophy argues that what difference it makes bumps up against such things as tolerance democracy helpfulness and non-idolatry and that the answer lies  in a hypothetical resolution or experimental action In other words thought itself ought optimally to have a result  one that combines truth and beauty Thought has a social purpose as does life as well  What difference does it make is a fair question regardless of what is under discussion
Stephen's Remarkable Kindle Store


Buffer