Existential philosophyes- a waste of time?

Years ago I started reading for a while the works of Schopenhauer, Kant, etc, but I realized that I'm not gaining anything.
Here is what I think it's the matter: all these philosophers who give theories about our existence, our mind, soul and or perception, all have the same tools: speculation and contemplation. There are no actual methods of putting their statements to the test.
So why don't I start enunciating my own theories about our world and wrap them up nicely in a book? It should have the same importance like the work of Friedrich Nietzsche and others, right? (that is, if we exclude the appeal to the public-factor)

And that's why I started resenting philosophy. Then again, I may, more than likely,be wrong. What do you think?

Here is a funny thing I heard:

" The son has a vacation and comes home from college. He finds his father chopping wood for the winter.
-Hey son, good to see you... why the long face?
-Hey dad, nothing, it's just that I found out in my philosophy class that the world around us does not exist , and it's all an illusion of our senses, and we are nothing but energy traveling through the dark cosmos at infinite speed.
-... oh that's nonsense, cheer up, help me finish this firewood.
- What's the point, this wood doesn't exist, you and me don't exist, it's useless.
-...:mad5: Now listen here you ingrate moron. From the day you were born, I raised you, I fed you, I wiped your butt and stood all your crying, and now you come here all mopey saying we don't exist ?!!! Start chopping firewood before I stuck my foot up your ***.:cuss: "

Rather than re-hash old ground, we've actually just had a similar thread just here:

http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=51817

You should be able to gauge my view from very early on.

:D

sorry about the repetition.:banghead::(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fuzzy_duck

sorry about the repetition.:banghead::(

---

No need to be sorry! :D

I'm just trying to save the same arguments being done again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fuzzy_duck

Here is a funny thing I heard:

" The son has a vacation and comes home from college. He finds his father chopping wood for the winter.
-Hey son, good to see you... why the long face?
-Hey dad, nothing, it's just that I found out in my philosophy class that the world around us does not exist , and it's all an illusion of our senses, and we are nothing but energy traveling through the dark cosmos at infinite speed.
-... oh that's nonsense, cheer up, help me finish this firewood.
- What's the point, this wood doesn't exist, you and me don't exist, it's useless.
-...:mad5: Now listen here you ingrate moron. From the day you were born, I raised you, I fed you, I wiped your butt and stood all your crying, and now you come here all mopey saying we don't exist ?!!! Start chopping firewood before I stuck my foot up your ***.:cuss: "

---

:lol: This is funny!

Yeah, it took you awhile to learn! :lol:

But, hey, philosophy is pretty interesting at times. They're just theories and we ALL have theories. The difference is that they can articulate some of the things they have in mind just a tad bit better.

Hi all, this is my first time posting here!

Fuzzy Duck -- you're right, you can publish any theory you have and it will have the same importance as anything anyone else has ever written. Nobody's opinion is worth more than that of another.
That said, if you're going to codify your ideas then you must make them into a cohesive system, or nobody will understand or take them seriously.

Nihilism /thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat Square

Nobody's opinion is worth more than that of another.

---

You dare to say that on a discussuion board?

:D

Pretty good first post - you can stay!

I'm more antagonistic against postmodernism, post-modernist and scientist are natural enemies.

Atheist -- thanks for your blessing :D

Pip -- I don't know anything about postmodernist philosophy, but I recognize postmodernism in art as collage or appropriation -- something that calls attention to the construction of the work.

I react very negatively to attempts at deconstruction of materialism as an attack on science. It's dangerous stupidity divorced from reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars

Even rejection of philosophy is still a philosophy. :wink5:

There is no doubt that in the past fifty years, philosophy in general--as well as rhetoric--has received a bad name. I don't know if philosophy will ever recover. I doubt it. Most assurdely rhetoric hasn't--and won't.

from that wikipedia article I gather that the postmodernist critique of science is that scientific "truths" must be understood within their social/historical/cutural contexts.

I don't see a problem with recognizing this, it doesn't seem take away from the results, it just offers a more in depth understanding.

Am I missing something?

It adds no further understanding at all. Criticism of science is only valid within the limits of the scientific method. When you start criticizing science on the basis of political, ideological, and philosophical grounds you end up with dangerous nonsense like Lysenkoism, which completely destroyed Soviet biological science for 40 years. All because the Soviets thought that genetics was an anti-Marxist bourgeois science.