A highlight of contemporary philosophy is that there are no absolute truths, and the idea that you can reach an absolute truth through logic alone has been abandoned.
It should be noted that the first philosophy that could be mentioned as the first contemporary philosophy was positivism, since one of its fundamental characteristics is to consider the scientific method as the only way to reach absolute truths. Authors like Auguste Comte define the history of man in three stages: the first stage is theology, which man thinks can reach the truth through mysticism, then comes the metaphysical stage, in which man does not trust god or of the mysteries, if not that it begins to make observations and introspections of the world that surrounds him, and finally the scientific part arrives (that Comte later would catalog like Madura), in which the man thinks that only by means of the scientific method can be get to the truth Nevertheless, positivism establishes that truths must always be palpable, thus denying a large part of abstract ideas.
Despite this great error of positivism; It is worth mentioning that he puts as a point on the table a salient aspect in philosophy (which had previously been promoted by Karl Marx) and that we will soon relate below; there is also another point that must be taken into account, and it is the fact that there are no absolute truths that allows a metaphysical rupture of philosophy; that metaphysical tradition that starts from Socrates, and that has been very well deployed throughout the world. This has generated a crisis of values
that has flooded the West and later the world, thus reaching post-modernity.
Already the Christian or metaphysical values
that existed predominantly in globalization and Western intellectuals in this plane of history are questioned, criticized, are "corrupted", by the multipolarity that characterizes it. This multiporality is caused by an intellectual desire of man to find new values, find new forms of inspiration and above all (find a new meaning to life).
This can be seen very well in the current of existentialism. In which authors like Nietzsche or very well Camus, try to validate (or invalidate) the meaning of existence. Now, this current of philosophy tends to be shown in a more individualistic way, in the sense that they are unknowns that start from the essence of the same subject.
Nietzsche narrates the vitalization of the subject before the same life and that breaks the emptiness of existence and the moral ties that deny life by inhibiting our desires. Nietzsche well (unlike Camus) fervently narrates the transformation of the individual towards life, the world and society.
Society that also undergoes a transformation in contemporary philosophy, since philosophers and scientists are responsible for studying social phenomena with a certain range of "particularity", as society is also taken into account not as something rigid, static and orderly . If not something dynamic, changing, and diverse. That is why the postmodern current begins to conceive society as a structure; a structure in which individuals are in some way united or intermingled in a linguistic diversity where symbols and signs are what represent our interpretive reality. This current was called structuralism.
Structuralism can be defined as a new perspective of how to see man in society, a way of understanding the human being as a social being and how we can deal with the difficulty of how to understand something that we can not study completely materially, which is man in society.
However. The society is at a crossroads of existential emptiness, I think that interculturalization, globalization has caused people to question each other what are the values
in which they should live, since it is through the mixture of culture that There may be a "comparison", which generates both conflicts (as well as), resentment by certain sectors that may exist in the world. And that is why, the transvaluation of values
represents many things today, not only in the Nietzschean sense, but even from a social perspective.
Karl Marx, for example, in his Thesis on Feuerbach expresses:
"Philosophers have done nothing but interpret the world in different ways, but it is about transforming it".
This gives to understand the perspective that takes the philosophy and later the society in which it could be denominated "the social praxis". And I think that this sentence together with constructivism presents, then, one of the greatest challenges of humanity. If constructivism is a philosophical and psychological current in which states that our reality is constituted by social constructions, as individuals. And if the man currently suffers a crisis of values
in which he has to question his values
to (in some way) put himself before some new ones, either being Nietzscheneans, or through social constructions. So then, we can reach the conclusion that one of the biggest questions of contemporary philosophy is: What to build in society ?, How to build society or the reality in which we live?
I will not answer this question in this essay. But I think that before "we" as humanity and think about how to build, we must first understand each other. Since, in this multipolar and diverse world, in this increasingly globalized world, in which lie many residues of violence and moral irregularity; There must be some kind of mutual understanding between men. And that there is a gap for dialogue and reconciliation between peoples. That is why I think that psychologists must be committed to the human condition; being impartial, eminently scientific, and above all, eminently humanists. So that in addition to the existence of humans, there is a humanity.
Thank you very much.