I ask this because it doesn’t seem to lead anywhere.
I get that philosophy is the study of knowledge, existence, reality, and all that good stuff. But what I don’t get is the point or the end game, since it seems like just about anything in it can be debated and still end up right. It’s very vague and arbitrary and much of it is based on how you define things. But for a field that pursues knowledge and wisdom they seem to give very little if any of what they claim to seek. All it seems to do is make you ask questions and doubt your knowledge and beliefs, but doesn’t give anything to replace that. It takes and takes but gives nothing back.
Like in the case of solipsism it introduces the possibility that you might be the only thing that exists and that anything outside of you is not possible to verify that it exists. It makes you doubt what is real to the point that those who buy into it usually are unable to leave it. But it doesn’t provide any way to solve the question it poses (like much of philosophy). The same goes for idealism, another idea that it can’t prove. So why bother if it gets nowhere?
I ask this because it doesn't seem to lead anywhere. I get that philosophy is the study of knowledge, existence, reality, and all that good stuff. But what I don't get is the point or the end game, since it seems like just about anything in it can be debated and still end up right. It's very vague and arbitrary and much of it is based on how you define things. But for a field that pursues knowledge and wisdom they seem to give very little if any of what they claim to seek. All it seems to do is make you ask questions and doubt your knowledge and beliefs, but doesn't give anything to replace that. It takes and takes but gives nothing back. Like in the case of solipsism it introduces the possibility that you might be the only thing that exists and that anything outside of you is not possible to verify that it exists. It makes you doubt what is real to the point that those who buy into it usually are unable to leave it. But it doesn't provide any way to solve the question it poses (like much of philosophy). The same goes for idealism, another idea that it can't prove. So why bother if it gets nowhere?People find it interesting to speculate. But if you don't like it, don't do it.
Couldn’t answer the other questions that have been posed to you, so you start a new question, huh?
We can’t answer all questions. Why is that such a difficult concept for you.?
Couldn't answer the other questions that have been posed to you, so you start a new question, huh? We can't answer all questions. Why is that such a difficult concept for you.?I answered those but that's not the point here, hence a new topic. I get that we can't answer all questions, but why have an entire field that asks questions that it cannot answer? Why even ask a question that you can't answer? Like I said it just makes you doubt without even bringing you closer to an answer in either direction, like whether reality exists outside you or the existence of a god (I have read a few philosophers that even rely on God to solve their arguments). All in all it seems like a useless field. I read that it teaches you to think but if that thinking doesn't go anywhere then is it even useful?
Titanomachina,
You are doing nothing else than asking philosophical questions. Asking them, and evaluating possible answers, is philosophy. So it seems to me that you are extremely interested in philosophy.
But, I have to add, I think you are avoiding your personal problems by stating them as philosophical questions, i.e. you try to objectify your problems, so you can feel justified being depressed.
I personally enjoy philosophy. Surely there is also personal investment in it: trying to understand my world helps to cope better with daily challenges. You on the other hand, seem only to look for recognition of your depressed view on the world and on your fellow humans.
Titanomachina, You are doing nothing else than asking philosophical questions. Asking them, and evaluating possible answers, is philosophy. So it seems to me that you are extremely interested in philosophy. But, I have to add, I think you are avoiding your personal problems by stating them as philosophical questions, i.e. you try to objectify your problems, so you can feel justified being depressed. I personally enjoy philosophy. Surely there is also personal investment in it: trying to understand my world helps to cope better with daily challenges. You on the other hand, seem only to look for recognition of your depressed view on the world and on your fellow humans.But it doesn't get me anywhere, I'm no closer to the an answer than when I started. All philosophy has done is rob me of the good in my life and does nothing to take its place. I arrived at my view of the world because of going into philosophy, it didn't help my understanding it just muddied it up. Philosophy doesn't aid in understanding, it takes it away. http://www.whyphilosophy.org/known-philosophical-truths.html Like the above states philosophical "truths" but the fact is that none of those can be proven to be true (and most are just opinions). How can a field that is supposed to study knowledge and wisdom give none of it out? Like I said, it just robs you of what you know until you are left with nothing and no way to figure it out. All you can ask is "how do you know" until you're left with nothing.
Couldn't answer the other questions that have been posed to you, so you start a new question, huh? We can't answer all questions. Why is that such a difficult concept for you.?I answered those but that's not the point here, hence a new topic. I get that we can't answer all questions, but why have an entire field that asks questions that it cannot answer? Why even ask a question that you can't answer? Like I said it just makes you doubt without even bringing you closer to an answer in either direction, like whether reality exists outside you or the existence of a god (I have read a few philosophers that even rely on God to solve their arguments). All in all it seems like a useless field. I read that it teaches you to think but if that thinking doesn't go anywhere then is it even useful? You never know when it might lead somewhere eventually. But if thinking upsets you, don't do it. Pull the covers over your head, instead.
Couldn't answer the other questions that have been posed to you, so you start a new question, huh? We can't answer all questions. Why is that such a difficult concept for you.?I answered those but that's not the point here, hence a new topic. I get that we can't answer all questions, but why have an entire field that asks questions that it cannot answer? Why even ask a question that you can't answer? Like I said it just makes you doubt without even bringing you closer to an answer in either direction, like whether reality exists outside you or the existence of a god (I have read a few philosophers that even rely on God to solve their arguments). All in all it seems like a useless field. I read that it teaches you to think but if that thinking doesn't go anywhere then is it even useful? You never know when it might lead somewhere eventually. But if thinking upsets you, don't do it. Pull the covers over your head, instead. But it never does lead anywhere because it ultimately cannot be prove .
The five main areas of philosophy impact critical thinking. Humans use critical thinking to obtain various goals each may find valuable for living a life as they wish or could imagine. Religious tend to desire domination of the entire world and everyone in it for their god and church. These captured philosophy of the great scientific minds of ancient Greece and turned it all for "god". Thus all academia and theologians who teach philosophy have tainted it with their hyper imagination and ignorance. Therefore, it is twisted. First, what it is and after, an example of the twisting. What it is: A way to systematically understand the human experience and as far beyond as possible. It usually starts with considering what there is to work with in life. What exists? Metaphysics and ontology. Religious and political bullies continue to try to use god and country to rule over others...for their own good. Then it goes on to "how do you know these things exist and how do they relate to one another?" This is epistemology. Again, the religious know what exists and how all thing relate through god of their holey moley book. All their philosophy is a never ending attempt to justify god over all reality and knowledge. Next is Political philosophy. How best to form laws forced on others? Laws tend to target economics, private property, and human rights. The economic spectrum runs from total freedom, self-organizing for all people economically (von Mises...then Hayek, Friedman....to Keynes... and finally with zero individual freedom comes Marx). Social contract theory of Locke and others can all be connecte to these. These are the ones who appear every election in one form or another. But the religious appear too saying what their holy-moley books say about tithes and giving to the church/temple and birth control thrown in and obeying god and hating the evil adulterers, homosexuals, and pagans...it is ok to kill them. Ethics is a study of actions toward one another. It is pragmatic but linked to all the rest. While intellectuals can look at the results over time and make learned recommendations and adjustments. Religious persons can only know that their holy moley is the one who has already decided this and that any deviation away from that which holy moley say is needed and any interactions holy moley forbids can only lead to total destruction of life...unless of course, it doesn't. Then the religious know...it was divine mercy. As for beauty...this is Aesthetics, like the fractals of the golden ratio and the universe...the religious already know what is beautiful to behold...the entire world, every man, woman and child eating a cracker, and believing it becomes human skin, drinking wine and knowing with no doubt or question it becomes blood, and giving up all desire to serve a three part person or single guy who brought all this to them through wisdom and glory of the ....wait for it....the....holy moley. I've written enough for now. But leave you with one philosophical thought: The holy spirit is the penis of god. Metaphysics source is self evident like a tree...don't you hear it falling? This penis got mary prego with a boy child. Epistemology: Holy Moley book Politics of force says, You must believe to avoid hell and be a good living person and belong to us called out of the world. Our constitution is the Holy Moley book. Ethics requires you all obey and serve the one who is greater than all you destined for hell sinners. You must spread his message and be his "little penis" to impregnate the world with the .....coming soon...Holy Moley message. This is ...beautiful and wonderous...and Holy Moley...true. Religion and philosophy are married at the alter of the church. What god hath joined together...science divorces. You may want to look up the term "scientific philosophy" and learn something that is lovely.That doesn't tell me anything or even address what I'm saying. You say philosophy is a tool for understanding yet it just leaves a great deal of unanswered questions that we simply cannot find the answers for. It also cannot prove the existence of other humans or yourself, the existence of a god, or even that of an external reality. Morality is also just as up for debate but eventually comes down to popular vote. What I'm trying (and keep saying) is that for a field that tries to understand the world it does nothing of the sort. For a field that seeks answers to questions, it cannot provide any. All philosophy, if questioned enough, comes down to proof that it cannot provide (which is why some thinkers had to use god otherwise they would never get anywhere). There is always a "why" to ask for everything and those whys don't go anywhere. They say philosophy makes progress by to me it seems like it is just stuck from the same place it started. And I'll state again, what's the use of thinking that doesn't go anywhere (or can't for that matter)?
But it never does lead anywhere because it ultimately cannot be prove .Troll
Is Philosophy Stupid?] simple answer, until we have the answers to everything, no, it's not stupidExcept it doesn't give answers, so it is stupid. All it can do is ask questions but not answer them. "Who am I?" "What should I do with my life? How can I be happy?" "Do I have the right friends? Are these bad friends?" "Am I a bad person? Should I be living my life differently?" "What's worth making sacrifices for? How much sacrifice?" "Am I in love? What is love?" "Is there a god / afterlife / cosmic plan?" All those questions they listed aren't ones philosophy can solve. They can only ask them. They can't even persuade someone who wants to die to live, they can't argue against committing suicide. I read through the whole thing but aside from stating that science is philosophy (which doesn't do a lick of good to support their case because science has actual evidence for itself and is harder to argue against) they still can't produce anything useful or answer their own big questions. As for "who am I" it can't answer that either. As I said, it just asks lots of questions and doesn't give any useful answers.
But it never does lead anywhere because it ultimately cannot be prove .Troll No, fact: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma They cannot prove anything, all they have is "because I say so" (which is what I boils down to). They cannot prove any of their claims and so are unable to give truth.
But it never does lead anywhere because it ultimately cannot be prove .Troll No, fact: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma They cannot prove anything, all they have is "because I say so" (which is what I boils down to). They cannot prove any of their claims and so are unable to give truth. Exactly. I showed you that months ago
But it never does lead anywhere because it ultimately cannot be prove .Troll No, fact: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma They cannot prove anything, all they have is "because I say so" (which is what I boils down to). They cannot prove any of their claims and so are unable to give truth. Exactly. I showed you that months ago So that proves how useless the field is if there can be no foundation for any of its claims.
But it never does lead anywhere because it ultimately cannot be prove .Troll No, fact: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma They cannot prove anything, all they have is "because I say so" (which is what I boils down to). They cannot prove any of their claims and so are unable to give truth. Exactly. I showed you that months ago So that proves how useless the field is if there can be no foundation for any of its claims. How does it prove that? Show your work.
The field is supposed to search for truth and wisdom. But the trilema states that one requires proof for its proof and this goes all the way back to the point where you must accept one of theee unsatisfactory points. The acceptance of each of any of these points means that there is no solid foundation for any truth you claim to seek. Each bit of information is just as valid as any other. Without any actual solid support underneath it you are building a house of sand. The field relies on asking why the entire time in order to find truth but if you question it enough that it eventually just comes down to belief and how can you prove any belief wrong?
That’s why philosophy is just a dog chasing its tail, even if it could attempt an answer it couldn’t prove it. Not that it even answers any of the questions it posits, I have to think that people are delusional if they think it helps them to understand the world
The field is supposed to search for truth and wisdom. But the trilema states that one requires proof for its proof and this goes all the way back to the point where you must accept one of theee unsatisfactory points. The acceptance of each of any of these points means that there is no solid foundation for any truth you claim to seek. Each bit of information is just as valid as any other. Without any actual solid support underneath it you are building a house of sand. The field relies on asking why the entire time in order to find truth but if you question it enough that it eventually just comes down to belief and how can you prove any belief wrong? That's why philosophy is just a dog chasing its tail, even if it could attempt an answer it couldn't prove it. Not that it even answers any of the questions it posits, I have to think that people are delusional if they think it helps them to understand the worldAnd, lookey there, you're doing philosophy. Well done grasshopper. When you can walk across the rice paper without tearing it, it will be time for you to go.
The field is supposed to search for truth and wisdom. But the trilema states that one requires proof for its proof and this goes all the way back to the point where you must accept one of theee unsatisfactory points. The acceptance of each of any of these points means that there is no solid foundation for any truth you claim to seek. Each bit of information is just as valid as any other. Without any actual solid support underneath it you are building a house of sand. The field relies on asking why the entire time in order to find truth but if you question it enough that it eventually just comes down to belief and how can you prove any belief wrong? That's why philosophy is just a dog chasing its tail, even if it could attempt an answer it couldn't prove it. Not that it even answers any of the questions it posits, I have to think that people are delusional if they think it helps them to understand the worldAnd, lookey there, you're doing philosophy. Well done grasshopper. When you can walk across the rice paper without tearing it, it will be time for you to go. That doesn't prove it's useful, I ironically used it to prove how pointless and stupid it is.
The field is supposed to search for truth and wisdom. But the trilema states that one requires proof for its proof and this goes all the way back to the point where you must accept one of theee unsatisfactory points. The acceptance of each of any of these points means that there is no solid foundation for any truth you claim to seek. Each bit of information is just as valid as any other. Without any actual solid support underneath it you are building a house of sand. The field relies on asking why the entire time in order to find truth but if you question it enough that it eventually just comes down to belief and how can you prove any belief wrong? That's why philosophy is just a dog chasing its tail, even if it could attempt an answer it couldn't prove it. Not that it even answers any of the questions it posits, I have to think that people are delusional if they think it helps them to understand the worldAnd, lookey there, you're doing philosophy. Well done grasshopper. When you can walk across the rice paper without tearing it, it will be time for you to go. That doesn't prove it's useful, I ironically used it to prove how pointless and stupid it is. Eh, very philosophical