What is the Most Important Philosophical Question

a reply to: darkbake

Matter and antimatter are the same in nature but vary in degree

a reply to: fatkid

Life no matter the form when attached tries to be in survival mode... even when not facing any challenge, the suffering is to then maintain that comfort and ease instead of diving through form like a fish without any porpoise...

Time being relative to observation... then the only thing holding life back is the attachment that is doesn't constantly flow along.

Of course observation of energy(life) animating matter(form) in the infinite fluctuating potiential it is... becomes blind anchored to such concepts of being in the "I am" in such a manner the becoming becomes a prison to hold and bind life the reason being? Intent behind actions... one of creation or destruction... seeking comfort and ease instead of diving into suffering itself to see the infinite nature of being.

Nature does this as a force on it's own... personifications of such things as creation has been blamed on gods for a very long time... when it is simply being in awareness of itself without any attachment to the forms in which it takes.

That of course once seen does not prevent the delusion of others in such attachments to a form that only appears in ones mind as a dream a bubble no more real than the concepts they were formed out of.

Is a tree a tree or wood is a tree a tree or even wood or just a bubble floating along others cling too as a concept for something of contact? When one contacts a "tree" who is making the determination that it is a tree or wood or anything else? The mind of grasping itself... unreal and illusion.

Of course existence as life is simply life... but when death is no different than any life floating and flowing around then it is like water.

Can anyone fill water with water when such a thing is a bubble of consciousness... how many bubbles are holding water? What else are they filled with? Well thats your conceptual world a dream and bubble when it pops then to whom does life belong when filled with the same accepted conspiracies in attachment as reality?

One can see with no name, one can hear with no sound, one can taste with no tongue, smell with no nose, feel with no touch.

All is simply contact that needs no definition... it is what it is until then. Contact can be with anything at any point. Formation follows name... kick the name and the form ceases to function in the mind it just is as it is beyond any grasp.

a reply to: Wang Tang

i am late to the party but no matter...here is my opinion about what is most important philosophical question.

in my view human beings wants to be happy, where and when life is not in danger or survival is not an issue and If basic needs are fulfilled than i think the basic question is how can i be happy? But not in a hippy kind of way...or if this is the way for you, than its ok, i don't mind.
well, i meant true happiness or inner happiness which needs no reason and just is.
Feeling fulfilled and content with yourself and enjoying each moment with whomever is around us. Animals or humans or other beings.

this is the first part of the question from my perspective.
When we contemplate that, than some may come to another question sooner or later. If we want such happiness we must first figure out who we are.

And this is the most important question for me.

Who am i?

the puzzle of all puzzles, what is a human being and how to be happy?
It is very simple question and i am sure others have also pointed already to something similiar.

Depending on what route you take. Depending on your definitions of happiness and human being. The answer may be very surprising and i am sure such journey would be or is? different for each one of us.

a reply to: Riffrafter

The notion that there are no correct answers is an answer in itself. And it is a self-defeating answer at that. I believe what you are trying to say is there are no incorrect answers? But this answer is also problematic, as there are clearly some philosophical questions which are more pressing than others.

There IS a right answer to my question. The implied question is, what is the nature of this answer? My question requires you to examine if the most important philosophical questions are objective in nature, or subjective in nature. Is it more important to examine philosophical truths, or to examine your personal well-being first?

Many of us were introduced to philosophical studies through our education, and pursued philosophy majors. As I reflect on my studies, I have a sense that some classes were more beneficial than others. I have a sense that some classes, while interesting to study, were merely mental exercises, and would have no effect on how I think or how I live my life. Some classes changed the way I looked at life. So before I get lost in the clouds doing inconsequential philosophy, I decided I needed to find the best starting point in philosophy so as to conduct the philosophical examinations that are most meaningful.

a reply to: luthier

I think you are on to something, and you clearly understand the nature of my question. I am seriously considering the possibility that "how do I act?" is the most important question, or close to it. With that said, I do see a potential issue. It seems to me your question can be interpreted in two different ways:

"How should I act?"
"How am I acting?"

My sense is that you mean to ask "how should I act?" But I would still like to clarify.

One thing a seeker of knowledge learns is that everything is a construct or depends on something else. Nothing is independent, though in theory God is supposed to be an independent reality…

Of course, Buddhism rejects the concept of God based on this analytical premise that everything is a construct of something else or a series of constructs…

This brings us to the very question of the OP; that is regarding philosophy itself

Philosophy as a scholastic pursuit or enterprise is one thing and philosophy as a way of life is entirely different.

I ascribe to the latter reality. The former is a construct of facts and history the latter is a construct of beliefs and experience.

Therefore, the important question seems to be: what the constructs of ones philosophical beliefs are.

a reply to: UniFinity

I do not recall anyone else mentioning the question of happiness earlier. Perhaps one person did and I am forgetting. But the question of happiness has not been a common response. I do recall Willtell asking the question of how to end suffering. I think these questions are similar in nature. I am glad you brought this question up, as I do believe it is one of the most important questions in philosophy. This is why Aristotle, one of the greatest philosophers, viewed Happiness as the greatest good.

With that said, it may be problematic how you structured your question: "how can I be happy?" This question seems to assume that you are not happy. Someone who is happy does not have a need to ask "how can I be happy?" If someone is already happy, a more appropriate question would be "Why am I happy?" So if we are to use this question as the objectively most important question, is it really safe to assume everyone is not happy? Or is there a better way we can ask the question?

originally posted by: Willtell

Philosophy as a scholastic pursuit or enterprise is one thing and philosophy as a way of life is entirely different.

I ascribe to the latter reality. The former is a construct of facts and history the latter is a construct of beliefs and experience.

Therefore, the important question seems to be: what the constructs of ones philosophical beliefs are.

I like the way you just laid this out. I would like to think my question as my attempt to break away from philosophy as a scholastic pursuit and commit to philosophy as a way of life.

I disagree with your conclusion though

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

I'll sum this up for you (as much as I can sum up everything you wrote)

Laws of Space

The universe consists of two basic physical components: matter/energy and Space.
Space can never be created or destroyed.
Space has a cohesive and elastic nature which resists displacement by matter/energy and separation from itself.
When Space is displaced, it becomes warped and thereby exerts a force in the direction of its displacement.
The force of displaced Space is proportional to the amount of matter/energy displacing it.
The density of Space is relative.

Laws of Observation

All objects are at rest relative to themselves.
Time and "true mass" are the only constants between the observer and the object being observed.
The only "real" or "true" measurements of an object are those which are done in the same existence state as the object itself.
Distance will decrease as relative velocity or relative Space density increases.


But I don't know what any of that has to do with you saying ants act the way they do due to propoganda

a reply to: fatkid

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.

And what exactly did he mean when he said Love? He asked if love exist. If by love you mean the attachment and endearment I have for my family, friends, and fellow man then that is very much real. I experience it. So not sure what this unknown love thing you are talking about its, but I experience love on a daily basis so I can't really deny its existence

a reply to: fatkid

They only exist to us.

a reply to: tadaman

No, you only exist to you, without you, I would still be here - there is no us, only you

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You love your friends the same way you love your family? Your friend, your wife, your mother, your kid, all the same?

a reply to: Wang Tang

You think we were created?

You haven't really defined you boundaries.

If you don't believe in creation/intelligent design, you shouldn't be looking for a reason, because it is then only because of chance.

If you do believe we were created then you have to understand the first step is mentalism we were first a thought and then creation followed. First step

a reply to: Wang Tang

I think the most important question is "What is the point?" or "Why?"

Outside of that, you said

is it the same question for all of mankind, or is the most important philosophical question different for each person?

, and that's a very, very valid question in itself. I would argue that it's finding our own truth, individually.

And by finding one's own truth,

Should I use philosophy to examine how I live my life, or is it more important to examine the true nature of reality?

it's ALL of that, an integral perspective we seek, and hope to understand about ourselves, the world, reality, and our place in it, as it relates to us.

Find your own path, your own truth, to live rightly and in accordance with yourself and (by extension) the world.

a reply to: fatkid

no, good and evil is only a concept to people. It is made by and for us (people) to contemplate.

a reply to: tadaman

Everything you think is a "concept to people" so your point is as valid as saying night and day are only a concept, or rich and poor are only a concept, soft and rough are only a concept.....

Again, of you believe there is "purpose" you must believe In Creation, if you were created there is a higher power than yourself, that higher power is what would decide the hat is good and evil, everything else would just opinion

originally posted by: Wang Tang
a reply to: luthier

I think you are on to something, and you clearly understand the nature of my question. I am seriously considering the possibility that "how do I act?" is the most important question, or close to it. With that said, I do see a potential issue. It seems to me your question can be interpreted in two different ways:

"How should I act?"
"How am I acting?"

My sense is that you mean to ask "how should I act?" But I would still like to clarify.

How should I act..

Do I take a philosophy class or not.

The earlier you understand you should think about your actions the better. Even simple stuff like dumping old medication in the toilet....should I wake up early to go jogging, take a trip abroad, save money...

To me understanding thought is available and reason.... to guide actions is key to setting up a society that says superstrings are smaller than quarks.

If we are stuck fighting for air then we cant make rockets to go to Mars.

It's also the question we are most losing sight of.

a reply to: fatkid

I could create an ape to have a synthetic memory of language. Literally this is becoming possible. The ape already has the biological hardware to use language and we have the ability to implant synthetic memory by concept.

Would I be a god to this ape?

a reply to: luthier

I can make a bench out of a tree am I a God to the bench?

Also, please link something scientific that says "apes" which I would assume you mean chimpanzees have the vocal cords to produce words as we know them.

Apes already communicate vocally.

So what you meant to say is, you can *modify* a ape to speak via genetic engineering.

Humans are a long way away from *creating* complex life capable of abstract thought.

We will probably create true AI before we will be able to create organic life grown from two created cells into something like a human.

Once this happens, you would have to ask the created creature if it thinks you are God or not.