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?Its primarily a mental exercise for those without jobs.
But it just means that its a waste of time. I didn’t get anywhere, I said the same thing I did before but with more words. There was no difference between the two. You saying such things does not make a case for philosophy being something useful. You just further show how pointless it all is.
Like I said already, what good is thinking that doesn’t go anywhere?
But it just means that its a waste of time. I didn't get anywhere, I said the same thing I did before but with more words. There was no difference between the two. You saying such things does not make a case for philosophy being something useful. You just further show how pointless it all is. Like I said already, what good is thinking that doesn't go anywhere?Saying things with more words is exactly what philosophers do. I had no intention of proving anything had a point or is useful. Your question is a philosophical question.
But it just means that its a waste of time. I didn't get anywhere, I said the same thing I did before but with more words. There was no difference between the two. You saying such things does not make a case for philosophy being something useful. You just further show how pointless it all is. Like I said already, what good is thinking that doesn't go anywhere?It is a waste of time for most people. To be fair, philosophy does have some fundamental use in science because it can assist in forming logically coherent theories, concepts, etc. Aside from that there is no practical use for it.
But it just means that its a waste of time. I didn't get anywhere, I said the same thing I did before but with more words. There was no difference between the two. You saying such things does not make a case for philosophy being something useful. You just further show how pointless it all is. Like I said already, what good is thinking that doesn't go anywhere?Saying things with more words is exactly what philosophers do. I had no intention of proving anything had a point or is useful. Your question is a philosophical question. That doesn't answer my question, also no it's not
But it just means that its a waste of time. I didn't get anywhere, I said the same thing I did before but with more words. There was no difference between the two. You saying such things does not make a case for philosophy being something useful. You just further show how pointless it all is. Like I said already, what good is thinking that doesn't go anywhere?Saying things with more words is exactly what philosophers do. I had no intention of proving anything had a point or is useful. Your question is a philosophical question. That doesn't answer my question, also no it's not There is no answer to your question, that's why it's philosophical!
The five main areas of philosophy... 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)?Philosophy is a process for logical thought and reasoning. Processes are not themselves thinking but for processing thinking. Thinking is energy flowing through the human brain and is controllable to a great extent by each person. Thus philosophy was developed by other individual humans for their own benefit and the benefit of someone like yourself and all others. If an idea forms in your head somehow, philosophy provides a set of steps to help you process that idea. Philosophy can't know anything. Only individuals know things as far as we "know". So if you pose a question, the steps of philosophy will help guide you to do what is known as critical thinking. By doing the work of thinking you can use philosophy to make thinking more helpful as you seek answers for yourself, and if you're good at thinking, others may listen to you kindly as well. I've outlined the five steps. But you have to think yourself. Thinking is work. There are few shortcuts. Get to work but watch out...religion has ruined most of the moral philosophical literature by saying Holy Moley is real when, given the best science, Holy Moley is just that...Holey and Moley. Stick to scientific philosophy based on skeptical realism. Skeptical realism posits that the world is real and can be known. Over 80% of professional philosophers base their work on skeptical realism. You have said nothing of import that addresses my question. I just told you that philosophy doesn't give answers just questions. Philosophy just mostly tosses the idea in the brain without getting anywhere to solve it. Is like some tool created just to give the illusion of intelligence and though while ultimately accomplishing nothing. It doesn't aid thinking or understanding, it just paralyzes thought. Thinking in philosophy is like being on a treadmill. Also prove that thinking is energy flowing through the brain (we don't even know what thoughts are). You also realize that skeptical realism is a belief and can't be proven?
But it just means that its a waste of time. I didn't get anywhere, I said the same thing I did before but with more words. There was no difference between the two. You saying such things does not make a case for philosophy being something useful. You just further show how pointless it all is. Like I said already, what good is thinking that doesn't go anywhere?Saying things with more words is exactly what philosophers do. I had no intention of proving anything had a point or is useful. Your question is a philosophical question. That doesn't answer my question, also no it's not There is no answer to your question, that's why it's philosophical! No there is an answer, it's either useful or not. You just can give one because you are stuck with uselsss tools.
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?Its primarily a mental exercise for those without jobs. Speak for yourself.
But it just means that its a waste of time. I didn't get anywhere, I said the same thing I did before but with more words. There was no difference between the two. You saying such things does not make a case for philosophy being something useful. You just further show how pointless it all is. Like I said already, what good is thinking that doesn't go anywhere?Whay are you here? You're as much a part of the problem as anyone.
The five main areas of philosophy... 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)?Philosophy is a process for logical thought and reasoning. Processes are not themselves thinking but for processing thinking. Thinking is energy flowing through the human brain and is controllable to a great extent by each person. Thus philosophy was developed by other individual humans for their own benefit and the benefit of someone like yourself and all others. If an idea forms in your head somehow, philosophy provides a set of steps to help you process that idea. Philosophy can't know anything. Only individuals know things as far as we "know". So if you pose a question, the steps of philosophy will help guide you to do what is known as critical thinking. By doing the work of thinking you can use philosophy to make thinking more helpful as you seek answers for yourself, and if you're good at thinking, others may listen to you kindly as well. I've outlined the five steps. But you have to think yourself. Thinking is work. There are few shortcuts. Get to work but watch out...religion has ruined most of the moral philosophical literature by saying Holy Moley is real when, given the best science, Holy Moley is just that...Holey and Moley. Stick to scientific philosophy based on skeptical realism. Skeptical realism posits that the world is real and can be known. Over 80% of professional philosophers base their work on skeptical realism. You have said nothing of import that addresses my question. I just told you that philosophy doesn't give answers just questions. Philosophy just mostly tosses the idea in the brain without getting anywhere to solve it. Is like some tool created just to give the illusion of intelligence and though while ultimately accomplishing nothing. It doesn't aid thinking or understanding, it just paralyzes thought. Thinking in philosophy is like being on a treadmill. Also prove that thinking is energy flowing through the brain (we don't even know what thoughts are). You also realize that skeptical realism is a belief and can't be proven? How is it a belief? What do skeptics believe beyond evidence?
Realism is no more than a belief in an external reality that is independent of us. We cannot verify that to be the case. It’s a bit tragic that in their search for evidence as a foundation they ultimately have to resort to belief. It makes them no different then theists.
Realism is no more than a belief in an external reality that is independent of us. We cannot verify that to be the case. It's a bit tragic that in their search for evidence as a foundation they ultimately have to resort to belief. It makes them no different then theists.What belief are we embracing? Pleaseprovide details.
Realism is no more than a belief in an external reality that is independent of us. We cannot verify that to be the case. It's a bit tragic that in their search for evidence as a foundation they ultimately have to resort to belief. It makes them no different then theists.You have a premise here, that there is an internal reality. That there is an "us". What's an "us". Why can't we verify it? Why is it tragic? What is evidence? WHat is "ultimate". For someone who doesn't like philosophy, you sure do a lot of it.
Realism is no more than a belief in an external reality that is independent of us. We cannot verify that to be the case. It's a bit tragic that in their search for evidence as a foundation they ultimately have to resort to belief. It makes them no different then theists.You have a premise here, that there is an internal reality. That there is an "us". What's an "us". Why can't we verify it? Why is it tragic? What is evidence? WHat is "ultimate". For someone who doesn't like philosophy, you sure do a lot of it. You're missing the point and just proving mine that it doesn't go anywhere.
Realism is no more than a belief in an external reality that is independent of us. We cannot verify that to be the case. It's a bit tragic that in their search for evidence as a foundation they ultimately have to resort to belief. It makes them no different then theists.What belief are we embracing? Pleaseprovide details. The belief in an external and testable reality and that other people and minds exist.
Realism is no more than a belief in an external reality that is independent of us. We cannot verify that to be the case. It's a bit tragic that in their search for evidence as a foundation they ultimately have to resort to belief. It makes them no different then theists.You have a premise here, that there is an internal reality. That there is an "us". What's an "us". Why can't we verify it? Why is it tragic? What is evidence? WHat is "ultimate". For someone who doesn't like philosophy, you sure do a lot of it. You're missing the point and just proving mine that it doesn't go anywhere. Where should it go?
Realism is no more than a belief in an external reality that is independent of us. We cannot verify that to be the case. It's a bit tragic that in their search for evidence as a foundation they ultimately have to resort to belief. It makes them no different then theists.What belief are we embracing? Pleaseprovide details. The belief in an external and testable reality and that other people and minds exist. I don't define reality as external. How do you define it?
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)? Your difficulty is clear. First it is laziness on your thinking part, likely you are lacking the tools to think clearly because the US, whose educational system is 16th in the world in math, and science. You, like myself and others who were exposed to it, must work harder. Why? If your thinking for any reason is not yielding what you want, it is up to you to change it. Your statements about "field of philosophy" claims...it wrong. Philosophy cannot claim anything. People claim, you claim, people think, you think. If you can't or don't want to or don't understand, keep looking. Many other people find philosophy functional. Secondly, "proof" is a word in the scientific method that just means sufficient evidence but proof is not a thing, it is a standard. No one, on process, no philosophy can prove anything. What phil. does do is impose a process where evidence can be weighed. Nothing is fully considered proven in science since what we don't know can always change what we do. To restate. The thinking problem is yours alone. Proof is a subject with no relevance. Philosophy will test your evidence on whatever subject you may care about. At this point, it is the ineffectiveness of your thinking you seem to hide by blaming philosophy. You seem to me either not sincere or just too ill educated to pose a reasonable and focused example anyone can speak too. I shall call your statements all "cloudy night" statements for they are without illumination and vague like the night sky full of clouds claiming there is no use of the sun. I'm afraid you are incorrect here, it's the tool of philosophy that is lacking here. Never have I been exposed to a more useless method of problem solving. It can't even give a conclusive answer so what good is it? You can weigh the evidence all you want but if you cannot prove it one way or another ethen what exactly is the point? It never gives a definitive answer. Philosophy cannot answer the question about the existence of others or an external reality, the existence of a god, who you are, or even what thoughts are. It's pretty much just opinions going back and forth with criticisms to match. I think many people believe philosophy to be function just the same and they believe in an external reality independent from themselves. And your point actually reinforces mine that philosophy just takes and gives nothing back but doubt. You are incorrect when it comes to laziness, I have been at this longer than I remember and it hasn't gotten me anywhere. The field itself is a ship that sinks itself by stating that nothing can be known. The more you get into it the less sense it makes and the more worthless you find it to be. There is no right or wrong answer and everything is up to debate. It's the definition of pointless: Also you just believe it to be useful to avoid facing the fact that you have wasted your time in its pursuit.
Realism is no more than a belief in an external reality that is independent of us. We cannot verify that to be the case. It's a bit tragic that in their search for evidence as a foundation they ultimately have to resort to belief. It makes them no different then theists.What belief are we embracing? Pleaseprovide details. The belief in an external and testable reality and that other people and minds exist. I don't define reality as external. How do you define it? I don't know, because according to philosophy one cannot know.