It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

What is the Most Important Philosophical Question

page: 12
21
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Wang Tang

The thing that bothers me most about this thread is that it seems people are looking for the "right" answer.

Are you f#cking kidding me?

That is anathema to the true philosopher. Whatever you feel is the most important philosophical question is the *exact* right answer.

Don't let the intelligentsia sway you from your own beliefs.

They are no more correct than you are. And if anyone tries to make you feel "less than" for any reason- screw them to death. This is philosophy we're talking about. There are *no* correct answers.

I guess my BA in Philosophy actually finally came in handy.

I feel better already.


edit on 11/21/2016 by Riffrafter because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

you say this


We're here to make the universe happen by observing it


but then say this - which doesn't really make sense, if we're no longer observing the universe



It could be that aliens will keep the universe going after we're long gone,


I know we're in a philosophy thread and anything goes, but could you clarify this?



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO

Ah, I see you have wandered into this discussion. You always let out cryptic hints. It's about time you made some thread's with some meat that we can chew on



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 12:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Riffrafter
a reply to: Wang Tang

The thing that bothers me most about this thread is that it seems people are looking for the "right" answer.

Are you f#cking kidding me?

That is anathema to the true philosopher. Whatever you feel is the most important philosophical question is the *exact* right answer.

Don't let the intelligentsia sway you from your own beliefs.

They are no more correct than you are. And if anyone tries to make you feel "less than" for any reason- screw them to death. This is philosophy we're talking about. There are *no* correct answers.

I guess my BA in Philosophy actually finally came in handy.

I feel better already.



So: would it follow to say, that the Philosophical question in the here and now, is the most important, as it basks in the center of the essence of Philosophical inquiry? (SP: enquiry?)

Is this only valid, if one believes that the only time, is now, and that the Universe is impermanent?
If one goes beyond belief, and exists only in the now, and there is no Philosophical question in that now, then what?



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit




Is Morality the Motivating Force behind Man's Quest for Knowledge that Benefits and Enriches his Personal Life through Acts that give a Deep Sense of Purpose for All Mankind ? Yes .


A weapon designer could live a fulfilling and very abundant life and yet bring misery to the world. He justifies his purpose along the lines of "every country need a defensive weapon". I'll never be out of business.

We should hunt these monsters down and destroy them for a "deep sense of purpose for most of mankind"



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 01:21 AM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

You do ask the hard ones...hehehe



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 01:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Wang Tang




who ate all the pies?


what pie, or more importantly if you didn't see the eater was there even a pie to begin with?



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 01:32 AM
link   
a reply to: doobydoll




Love is all powerful, it can halt the bloodiest of wars.


And start wars ie Helen Of Troy



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 01:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Nothin

What?!?

Speak plainly friend, for anything else is nonsense.

And BTW - I am a Brooklyn boy with an Ivy League education both undergrad and grad, so it's not my comprehension that is lacking. My manners may from time to time though, as you can take the boy out of Brooklyn, but you can't take the Brooklyn out of the boy.



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wang Tang
a reply to: luthier

I do like this question. It is individualistic, answerable, and relevant for people in any life situation.

However, my one concern is the superficial nature of the question. It seems more geared towards pleasing others than pleasing one's self. Or perhaps pleasing others is pleasing to one's self. Perhaps we are superficial beings.


Duty and the social contract are not enherently superficial. If the Greeks were different citizens they wouldn't have had time for philosophy.

To me it comes down to what is more important breathing or eating?

How to act to me is like breathing. It's the first thing necessary for everything else.

You do point out that nature is different. It is. Survival changes morality. Immoral acts fade away with intent. So if I decide to eat my neighbor it's not acceptable. If I eat my dead neighbor in a plane crash in the Andes for survival suddenly morality changes with intent.

I know philosophers know what act means but it's larger than how to compose yourself it means any action. Being conscious and using philosphical thought for understanding how to act in situations is like having glasses for bad vision.

There are other questions of importance, just pointing out the most basic one is often the foundation for everything that follows.

If we act according to the progress of society as citizens we will have more thinkers who can advance thought. If we return to barbarism thought is focused on survival.



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter

Your first statement is true. As philosophers you make reasoned arguments for debate. Winning and loosing is more based on falicious statements then which one is true.

Big fan of Popper when it comes to falsifiability.

When I did formal debate in college philosphy it was always won by proving the other statement false rather than necessarily proving your claim. You have to structure an argument to not be false but that doesn't mean it's true. If you have come to understand the philosophical meaning of this you know arguments can never be absolutely true but can only withstand falsifiability.

Even 2+2 or all bachelor's are single.
edit on 21-11-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

When your why turns into doubt, settling for high horses and pawns when so many others are waiting in the wings is sort of a futility to be stuck in so much mud without getting bored.

If the mind moves kill it.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Riffrafter
a reply to: Wang TangAnd if anyone tries to make you feel "less than" for any reason- screw them to death.



Very philosophic of you. I'm sure that degree, that piece of paper, serves you well in everything you do.

I propose something different, though. Instead of wanting to "screw someone to death" for "making" you feel a certain way, you can work on improving your own mental fortitude. Perhaps then every percieved sideways glance and petty jibe doesn't throw you into conniptions.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 12:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Riffrafter
a reply to: Nothin

What?!?

Speak plainly friend, for anything else is nonsense.

And BTW - I am a Brooklyn boy with an Ivy League education both undergrad and grad, so it's not my comprehension that is lacking. My manners may from time to time though, as you can take the boy out of Brooklyn, but you can't take the Brooklyn out of the boy.


Apologies Riffer. In retrospect: the reply was not really pertinent to your post, but was to the thread. Probably your ideas just got the noggin going, and led to other thoughts.

edit on 23-11-2016 by Nothin because: sp



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

You can't compare humans to ants and bees and then blame the effect on propoganda and tradition, there is no such thing as any propoganda or tradition (in the ant world) - only genetics and survival.




edit on 23-11-2016 by fatkid because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

This can all by accomplished my assuming temporary truths and then assuming the opposite is also possible, or attacking a view from a diameter sometimes there are half truths.

If you cant temporarily assume something to be true to explore a question or idea, then you are just trying to turn philosophy into unsupported evidence based off of feelings, and they are very much different.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

Good and evil are the same thing in nature they only vary in degree



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You don't know that love is real based off how you feel about someone, others do not feel the same about their parents.

So they way you feel about your parents does not prove you "love" them, only that you precieve what you feel as love and you call what you feel love because you were taught that the way you feel about your parents is called love.

Love and hate are the same in nature but vary in degree



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Nothin

Thought is not illusion, mentalism is the first natural law, nothing exists without thought, nothing.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

It depends on how you use it... it can be a adjective a pronoun or an adverb




top topics



 
21
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join