When does philosophy become drivel and why?

[dizzydoll]

Dont you just love it the way Atheist dissects all our posts. lol.

Well I dont care what y'all got to say.. I love it.

[Dodo25]

You should write a book - isn't the entire history of philosophy about understanding those questions?

I have something in mind.. More like a novel though with such themes. It will be hard to write though and I'm not sure whether I can do it.

Yes, a lot of philosophy is about these questions, and I do think most of them are answered by evolutionary biology applied interdisciplinary with other sciences. It is a bit depressing that the answers to most of the 'fundamental questions of humanity' are actually known, yet people don't seem to notice that. I mean the fact that 40% of Americans reject evolution speaks for itself (and even in Europe, the average percentage is almost 20%).

Not all of philosophy deals with these questions though, where it becomes useful in my view is subjective experiences such as consciousness, or 'values' which should be assessed somehow so one can come up with laws, or ethical systems. Or even political systems. Another interesting field would be 'philosophy of science', the scientific method itself can be regarded as a product of philosophy.

[dizzydoll]

And of course each culture has their own schools of thought, so people of different groups will connect in philosophy, conversing about nothingness in relaxation... OM

[The Atheist]

I have something in mind.. More like a novel though with such themes. It will be hard to write though and I'm not sure whether I can do it.

Too late, Dawins has already done it!

Yes, a lot of philosophy is about these questions, and I do think most of them are answered by evolutionary biology applied interdisciplinary with other sciences. It is a bit depressing that the answers to most of the 'fundamental questions of humanity' are actually known, yet people don't seem to notice that. I mean the fact that 40% of Americans reject evolution speaks for itself (and even in Europe, the average percentage is almost 20%).

Now I can just agree with you 100%.

Not all of philosophy deals with these questions though, where it becomes useful in my view is subjective experiences such as consciousness, or 'values' which should be assessed somehow so one can come up with laws, or ethical systems. Or even political systems.

Can you let in on which ones they are useful in?

I've been trying to find a practical use of philosophy to date that isn't just critical thinking, so concrete examples will be gratefully received.

Another interesting field would be 'philosophy of science', the scientific method itself can be regarded as a product of philosophy.

Product of, sure; but I think it's moved far enough to say that the two are no longer compatible.

[Dodo25]

Too late, Dawins has already done it!

Lots of people have done something along the line. But if I try, I'd go for a novel, not a science book, which would be something new.

Example of useful systems:

Kant's categoric imperatif makes a lot of sense. Then I do like the idea of utilitarianism, in its present form I must say it has too many flaws, but definately a promising approach. Democraty is a philosophy, Capitalism too.

[caesar]

Post #46 was just a parody of the general opinion on the matter to outline its ostensive asininity; the flaw was, it wasn't exaggerated enough

Apparently I was guilty of selective reading. Thanks for pointing out.

I think it's a priviledge......

Like I said I'm an agnostic and if there is God then I don't want any privilege; I want to be nothing less than God. Because I don't like the idea (or privilege) of being a fish in an aquarium created by God.

So one thing I like to do in my life is understanding as much as possible...... Others are satisfied by 'God just did it', which explains nothing at all. I don't understand how either of them do it, but it's their right to think that way, as long as they are happy they shall believe what they want (altough that doesn't mean I let their wrong or unsupported beliefs pass unchallenged when they present it in a discussion).

There we have something in common. But again, if there is God, our discoveries and inventions are meaningless, because God already knows the answers and is merely playing with us. It's like training your dog to do something which you can do yourself just for fun.

And finally for the last thing, life's fun, and since there most likely is only one life, why not try to make the best out of it? Have fun, enjoy time with firends and loved one's, achieve something... That's just how I see it, maybe it helps you, maybe you think it's a stupid view.

Yes, finally, when your life is fun and you have friends and loved ones to share your happiness with, you are, indeed, privileged. But, firstly, not everybody in this world find themselves under such favourable circumstances to make their life worth living (One simple example is people dying of hunger and curable diseases because of poverty. There is no fun in their life. What do they have to live for?); and secondly, even if I am going to be happy for the rest of my life, it is not sufficient to make my life meaningful (or useful), unless I can beat death and live forever, or unless I can be certain that humanity will survive forever and humans will go on become the masters of their destiny and the universe. I don't think that I'll be able to beat death, but, I would like to be an optimist and believe that humans will manage to survive forever. In my opinion if humans cannot survive for ever then all that we are doing is meaningless. Hence, it makes sense to ask the question, "What is the meaning of life?" The same question can be rephrased as, "What is the use of doing all that we are doing if we, humans, will cease to exist one day?" The answer that it's a privilege and that it's fun is no good for me.

[The Atheist]

Lots of people have done something along the line. But if I try, I'd go for a novel, not a science book, which would be something new.

Give it a try! You have an immediate market of a billion or so secular people!

Hence, it makes sense to ask the question, "What is the meaning of life?" The same question can be rephrased as, "What is the use of doing all that we are doing if we, humans, will cease to exist one day?" The answer that it's a privilege and that it's fun is no good for me.

You've just destroyed your own premise, because if you don't conecern yourself with the meaning of life, you can just get on and enjoy it.

If you insist on having a meaning, you will end up in church, because it's the only place which tries to offer one.

[caesar]

You've just destroyed your own premise, because if you don't conecern yourself with the meaning of life, you can just get on and enjoy it.

I have no idea which premise you are talking about. Please be more specific. I will repeat myself for your benefit that in order to "get on" with my life and to "enjoy it", I need to know why I need to "get on" with my life and "enjoy it".

If you insist on having a meaning, you will end up in church, because it's the only place which tries to offer one.

This statement is nothing more than a ridiculous rhetoric. In fact, your rhetoric merely proves your lack of faith in your ability to reason, because I, like many others around the world, rely on reason to find the meaning of life. To say that church is the only place which tries to offer a meaning to life is nonsense. In any case, what is wrong in finding the meaning of your life in a church, if it satisfies you? Can you claim that the entire church-going community is lacking in wisdom?

[The Atheist]

I have no idea which premise you are talking about. Please be more specific. I will repeat myself for your benefit that in order to "get on" with my life and to "enjoy it", I need to know why I need to "get on" with my life and "enjoy it".

If you need to find a "meaning of life" to be happy, you'll never be happy - unless you end up subscribing to an existing religious doctrine.

You don't need to get on and enjoy your life; lots of people have spent all their lives searching for the meaning, which is why this thread exists - philosophers have been searching for 10,000 years and have had no luck so far.

This statement is nothing more than a ridiculous rhetoric. In fact, your rhetoric merely proves your lack of faith in your ability to reason, because I, like many others around the world, rely on reason to find the meaning of life.

You can call it rhetoric if you like, but to me, it's simply an analysis of fact. Nobody using reason has yet found any "meaning" to life, and given that most of those who have tried are much smarter tham me, I have extreme doubt that one will ever be found.

If you believe reason has been, or even can be, used to find a "meaning" of life, please present details.

To say that church is the only place which tries to offer a meaning to life is nonsense.

See above. I'll wait until you can describe a non-religious claim, as I'm aware of no others to date. None that fit, anyway, as I'm ignoring the likes of David Icke.

In any case, what is wrong in finding the meaning of your life in a church, if it satisfies you?

Delusion doesn't count as an answer in my world, but I agree that many people are quite happy with a religious answer to the question.

Can you claim that the entire church-going community is lacking in wisdom?

No, they're more like a horse with blinkers/blinds on, because belief is about desire rather than wisdom. People want to believe, so they ignore the obvious absurdities of religion and believe it anyway.

[caesar]

The Atheist, I would suggest we stick to the topic of this thread about the usefulness of philosophy. In my earlier post, I pointed out, law as an example of useful philosophy. I would like to know what you think about my example since you have been vehemently arguing against the usefulness of all philosophy.

I have responded to the remarks in your last post below. But if you want to continue discussing the topic 'meaning of life' I would suggest you open a new thread so that we can deal with the topic more effectively.

If you need to find a "meaning of life" to be happy, you'll never be happy - unless you end up subscribing to an existing religious doctrine.

Again at the expense of repeating myself, I'm pointing out to you that the purpose of finding the 'meaning of life' is not necessarily to be happy. If there is no meaning to life there is no point in living, notwithstanding your being happy or unhappy. In other words, 'If life is meaningless it's not worth living'. I'll give you an analogy to help you understand the meaning (or import) of the word "meaningless" used in the previous sentence. Consider the word "meaningless" when one is consoling another by saying, "It is meaningless to cry now". The word "meaningless" is used to mean futile and that by crying the person crying will not be able to achieve anything.

Next, you will want to know what makes me think that life (living) is futile. It is 'death'. Again, at the expense of repeating myself, I am pointing out, if humans cannot survive for ever then there is no meaning to what humans are doing now - discovering, inventing, creating, waging wars over boundaries, over ideologies, discussing on lit-net forum, getting on with life and enjoying it, etc, etc. It would be like rehearsing for a play which will never be staged. On the other hand, if I am certain that I'll not die or (the next best thing) that humans will never cease to exist, I don't mind accepting both happiness and sorrow, because then whatever we are doing will not be for nothing. Now you may ask me why I'm sceptical about the survival of humanity for ever. Certainly, unless we, humans, manage to colonize some other habitable part of the universe, we will cease to exist when the sun burns out. One cannot even rule out the possibility of humans ceasing to to exist because of their own folly (like war, or some science experiment).

I'll add here that different people have different reasons to ask what is the meaning of life. The reason may not always be the inevitability of death. Of course, it is one of the most important reasons. Religious people find satisfaction in the promise of heaven or rebirth or soul's immortality. I was not satisfied with answer provided by religion so the question persisted until I found my own meaning (from a lot of reading and thinking, of course). I will not claim that the meaning I've found is indisputable, but, for the time being I'm satisfied. So there is no point in your going go on and on about religion being the only source of answer, because I've gone past it.

To me, to "get on" with life and to "enjoy it", just because I have (or have been given) a chance (privilege) to live is nothing more than living like an animal. If both animals and humans get on with their lives and enjoy it and if one day both animals and humans become extint, then, animals would have lived and died without understanding anything, and, we, humans, would have lived and died understanding some of the things. I agree, to some people, it is all the difference they need to make their life meaningful (good for them), but to me it's not enough unless the immortality of the human race is assured. To them meaning begins and ends with enjoying the life they have been given, to me it is in the perpetuity of human survival and advancement.

You don't need to get on and enjoy your life; lots of people have spent all their lives searching for the meaning, which is why this thread exists - philosophers have been searching for 10,000 years and have had no luck so far.

You can call it rhetoric if you like, but to me, it's simply an analysis of fact. Nobody using reason has yet found any "meaning" to life, and given that most of those who have tried are much smarter tham me, I have extreme doubt that one will ever be found.

Your premise that philosophers have not found an answer for 10,000 years is wrong and your conclusion that it is very unlikely that they will find an answer is, again, wrong and it is a despondent attitude. Firstly, I don't believe in running away from a valid question just because others have failed to find an answer to it. Secondly, philosophers (including religious philosophers) have provided answers to this question. Some philosophers have come to a negative conclusion that there is no meaning to life for various reasons, and others have given a positive answer that life is meaningful for various reasons. Some people may be satisfied with the reasons provided to one of the answers and they may agree that life is either meaningful or meaningless; others continue to search, because they are not satisfied with the reasons to both the answers or because they are troubled by the irony of living by accepting the negative answer.

If you believe reason has been, or even can be, used to find a "meaning" of life, please present details.

See above. I'll wait until you can describe a non-religious claim, as I'm aware of no others to date. None that fit, anyway, as I'm ignoring the likes of David Icke.

I don't want to waste my time supplying you with proof for a widely discussed subject. Why don't you search on the internet. Just to let you know that I'm not running away from a challenge, I'll recommend to you 'The Fountainhead' by Ayn Rand (positive answer) and 'The Bet' by Anton Chekhov (negative answer).

No, they're more like a horse with blinkers/blinds on, because belief is about desire rather than wisdom. People want to believe, so they ignore the obvious absurdities of religion and believe it anyway.

There is no difference between you and them. You claim to use reason to find happiness and they believe in heaven or the immortality of the soul to find happiness. But, both of you are going to die (cease to be humans in flesh and blood) and the superiority of your reason (over religious beliefs) is no good once you are dead.

[dizzydoll]

I just believe that during discussions in philosophy bright sparks will fly, it wouldnt surprise in the least to discover that inventions did actually occur as a result of philosophical discussions. Goes to its necessity.

Have a Spoonful

[Scheherazade]

~

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Posts containing personal/inflammatory comments and/or showing intolerance towards others' beliefs will be removed without any further notice.

~

[The Atheist]

The Atheist, I would suggest we stick to the topic of this thread about the usefulness of philosophy.

I thought we were!

In my earlier post, I pointed out, law as an example of useful philosophy. I would like to know what you think about my example since you have been vehemently arguing against the usefulness of all philosophy.

First off, you'd need to show where and which philosophy is responsible for which law, because our law is still based on biblical ramblings far more than philosophy.

On the other hand, I have asked and asked for a practical example of something which philosophy has actually done and I haven't seen an answer yet.

I have responded to the remarks in your last post below. But if you want to continue discussing the topic 'meaning of life' I would suggest you open a new thread so that we can deal with the topic more effectively.

No need - it's done and dusted.

Again at the expense of repeating myself, I'm pointing out to you that the purpose of finding the 'meaning of life' is not necessarily to be happy.

I agree - I was discussing your own particular case as stated by you twice. That's why I gave the exanple of apathetic agnosticism.

If there is no meaning to life there is no point in living, notwithstanding your being happy or unhappy.

This makes no sense and appears to be a tautology where your "point" and "meaning" are the same.

Again, at the expense of repeating myself, I am pointing out, if humans cannot survive for ever then there is no meaning to what humans are doing now - discovering, inventing, creating, waging wars over boundaries, over ideologies, discussing on lit-net forum, getting on with life and enjoying it, etc, etc. It would be like rehearsing for a play which will never be staged.

I do understand your position. I just happen to think it's rather meaningless itself. We are a part of the evolution of life on earth and whether the species continues or not is irrelevant to me.

Again, it seems your only option is theism, because it's a stone-cold certainty that humans will not be around forever.

I will not claim that the meaning I've found is indisputable, but, for the time being I'm satisfied. So there is no point in your going go on and on about religion being the only source of answer, because I've gone past it.

This discussion would make a lot more sense if you just posted it.

To me, to "get on" with life and to "enjoy it", just because I have (or have been given) a chance (privilege) to live is nothing more than living like an animal.

You do realise we are animals? Lot better than being a plant, I'd say.

I agree, to some people, it is all the difference they need to make their life meaningful (good for them), but to me it's not enough unless the immortality of the human race is assured.

As I said - you're on a certain loser. Apart from anything else, the universe will burn out/die off at some stage.

Your premise that philosophers have not found an answer for 10,000 years is wrong and your conclusion that it is very unlikely that they will find an answer is, again, wrong and it is a despondent attitude.

Not really despondent, because I'm not bothered by it at all.

Since you claim I'm wrong, I'll wait for your description of that one physical success philosophy has had - aside from staffing McDonald's.

Some philosophers have come to a negative conclusion that there is no meaning to life for various reasons, and others have given a positive answer that life is meaningful for various reasons.

Excellent!

That's a classic example of what I mean. Philosophy can't even agree on whether there's an answer, far less what it is.

I don't want to waste my time supplying you with proof for a widely discussed subject. Why don't you search on the internet. Just to let you know that I'm not running away from a challenge, I'll recommend to you 'The Fountainhead' by Ayn Rand (positive answer) and 'The Bet' by Anton Chekhov (negative answer).

It seems to me that you're confusing the issue here. Any philosopher can give what he/she thinks is an answer.

I asked for concrete examples of real-world answers which have been given to mankind by philosophy and you've managed to come up with two opposite doctrines.

Not even close.

[Lionheart]

I tend to think reading a lot of Existentialism that it suffers from being way too wordy. I wouldn't necessarily call it drivel, but close to it because they aren't forthcoming about what the justification of the fifty or more pages are. Greek philosophy and Lao-Tse is very straight forward; like Heraclitus' maxims are short statements that drive you to the core and are able to analyze then and there. Since I have not read other schools of philosophy besides (the close cousin), Absurdism, and Christian infused Boethius; on the other hand, I feel bad about naming Existentialism by name.

To suffice, I would say anything that's too much about wowing the student with their wordsmithy and not chopping to what they are trying to conclude.

[whathappened]

I find the pre-Socratics and Lao Zi obscure, but interesting. For instance, I am not sure what the sage means by 'if a way can be told, it is not the everlasting way', the first sentence in his classic.