哲学就是真理，真理没有好坏之分，它就是真理。真相的影响可能是好的也可能是坏的取决于环境，但这不是问题所在。

There are though many philosophical ideas that have been proven untrue through the tests of time, Plato's forms for example. and they would be considered not bad or good but simply incorrect, right?

那么，在我们目前所知的所有哲学著作中，有哪些是真实的呢?什么是真的吗?
Has philosophy found the answer yet?
You know, the absolute. In physics, certainty. In religion, God. In justice, beyond the grayness of fair. In democracy, the truth that we hold self-evident.
What is the single truth that solves them all, I think it is good to know.

Thanks,
=

I think, based on some things I have been reading lately, that this is the wrong question. One needs to switch a couple of words around, in order to get at the right one. The question should be (and I have this on good authority): What good is philosophy? Well, for example, Jefferson, Madison and several other founding fathers found Enlightenment philosophers helpful when it came to crafting a New World government. Men like Hume and Rousseau grabbed their attention. Now, we do not give as much credence to such historical figures today, but, this is now, and different philosophical issues, perhaps deeper ones, demand attention. Good philosophy, though, is, arguably, that which gets published, or at least that which affords a livelihood for its'. practitioners. There are so many variations and so much squabbling among those in the discipline, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish smoke from fire. Pragmatism speaks to some, while leaving others cold.. Some fairly worship Davidson, Dewey, Nagel and others of the ilk; while some think Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, Nietzsche, et al, had the most to say about human conditions (The Human Condition is a tired platitude which ought to be re-tired or buried, even though I still use it, in the context of that caveat.) Michel Foucault has his loyal admirers. What IS good philosophy? I really don't know, but I have learned a lot in the last twenty years. And I have learned from a diversity of philosophical treatises. I may even revisit Habermas, because apparently my first exposure to his notions was too early in the game. I probably will not read Plato; Socrates; Aristotle; and others of their time. Because that was then; this is now; I have my own philosophy to do and precious little time to do it...

Not that it is all that directly related to this post, or even all that interesting, in itself, I thought I'd share an excerpt from a recent essay of mine concerning knowledge, opinion and belief. My previous comment, above (February 9, 2020)might serve as an introduction, of sorts, to the following:

...It is seductive to posit that if there were a continuum on which opinion,belief and knowledge might rest, belief would naturally fall somewhere between the others. But, I do not know how that could be right. Opinions can be based on facts and other bits of knowledge, while knowledge obtains its own unassailable standing, PRO SE. More often, a belief is based only on what someone has said about about something, rather than any nuggets of indisputable fact. Belief, as such, lies within a never-land, not demonstrably true, yet neither indubitably false...

So, good philosophy MAY be strictly in the eyes and ears of the beholder and what that beholder wants to believe, based on preferences and/or that cognitive bias, briefly discussed in an earlier post. Philosophers who ring resoundingly for me, may ring resoundingly hollow for someone else, and the other way round. That's the thing about beliefs and opinions---there are dozens of them out there... Over the last two days, I have 'pitched' an essay to a local newspaper. They seemed genuinely interested in publishing it---until I told them I did not wish to have my picture in the paper. I cited privacy concerns, which they chose to ignore. Ironically, part of the essay decried the narcissism and so-called 'transparency' of the world as we now know it. Apparently, the notion of privacy is archaic. In most quarters. Too bad policies are so inflexible.

A few more thoughts on my 02/11/2020 comments::
...People confuse knowledge with opinion. That is a mistake. While opinion may be based, in part, on knowledge, this does not work the other way round. The larger mistake occurs when belief is confused with either of the former. Whereas opinion and knowledge reside, roughly, on the same 40 acres, belief lives on a totally different farm...

What is GOOD philosophy? I still don't know, but keep trying to write some anyway. Here's a late entry, based on language and the ways we can misuse it. Put it, if you wish, under the heading, philosophy of language. Fascinating topic, that.

The Veil of Deceit:

Transgression is no more than a watered-down term for aggression; a linguistic distinction with a softened prefix, in a guise of civility via diplomacy. Yet, there is nothing civil about either act. They are inseparably joined, head-to-foot: diluted hostility remains hostility nonetheless, and is, in the end, a regressive drain on the higher-order consciousness of which human beings are capable. Surreptitiousness is an evil of a particularly egregious sort. The placebo effect of language and its propensity to re-invent itself bestow an aura of acceptability and comfort on an uncertain world, while a veil of deceit blankets the broad horizon.