Are you ever frustrated by silly philosphical questions?

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Every now and then some new scientific breakthrough will be detailed in the Athaeneum, that has vastly increased our understanding of some topic.

Whenever I see a thread like that, I think, "that still doesn't answer a single important question about our existence" - "Why do we exist?", "Why don't I not exist?" "Why is there a concept of existence?" "What does that even mean anyway?"? Who cares about the how, it's the why we need to know, yet probably never will.

Does anyone else ever get this when they see for example, the current athaeneum thread about a new alternative to the big bang theory?

[Mr. Crow]

the important part of philosophy are not answers but the questions themselves. you see by the nature of the fundamental question they are un-answerable. we can never now, but by guessing we initiate the process of thought and find some more questions and answers about te world and ourselves.

For example, the question What are things made of? we can never know but in our statements to find out we have discovered many useful things.

while examing this questions we develop logical arguments and logical process that can significantly ease our progress in scientific development. many things can be solved merely by logic.

there is also the fact of self questioning, which in itself is our best chance to fight our prejudices and be free.

[43rdFoot]

In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter if you're frustrated by silly philosophical question?

[Mr. Crow]

no in the big picture, everything is trivial and pointless

[Vizsla]

Some questions are annoying because they are trivial semantics. Do not allow this kind to trouble you.
Some questions are annoying because either there is no answer or the only answers available are intellectually unsatisfying (not true). I find solace in the simple truth that we are the only creatures (that we know of) capable of being troubled by these questions. The flip side of having the capacity to be troubled by unanswerable questions is that you have the capacity to think about them in the first place. On balance this is a blessing.

[CamilleBonparte]

no in the big picture, everything is trivial and pointless

No wonder you are so frustrated.

[Tacitursa]

"that still doesn't answer a single important question about our existence" - "Why do we exist?", "Why don't I not exist?" "Why is there a concept of existence?" "What does that even mean anyway?"? Who cares about the how, it's the why we need to know, yet probably never will.

I personally hope those types of questions are never answered because no answer will ever be good enough for me and i honestly dont see an answer being good enough for anybody else either.

[OccidentisVir]

Every now and then some new scientific breakthrough will be detailed in the Athaeneum, that has vastly increased our understanding of some topic.

Whenever I see a thread like that, I think, "that still doesn't answer a single important question about our existence" - "Why do we exist?", "Why don't I not exist?" "Why is there a concept of existence?" "What does that even mean anyway?"? Who cares about the how, it's the why we need to know, yet probably never will.

Does anyone else ever get this when they see for example, the current athaeneum thread about a new alternative to the big bang theory?

There is a very good reason for this. Science does not, and cannot, explain the ultimate questions. When someone asks, "Why do we exist?", he is essentially asking, "What is the purpose of life?" In the terminology of Aristotle, science is concerned only with efficient causes, whereas these questions are about final, or teleological, causes. Knowing what physical processes occurred during the big bang could have a myriad of practical benefits, but it cannot tell us the end to which we ought to direct these benefits. So no, these are not "silly" questions, but of the utmost importance.

[Claudius Gothicus]

You mean like postmodernist philosophical ? yes it annoys me greatly.

[Col. Tartleton]

Essentially science is inherently flawed because humans are not smart enough to know everything. We can't as individuals learn all the stuff there is to know. So we are in it as a group effort. This group effort spans centuries, continents, and beliefs. As such science is basically a large number of people working as a hive mind to carry out investigations. We can't all be the wise in the art of polymathematics.

Ultimately there is probably only a handful of people in the world who dominate several fields with their expertise. They can do this because they aren't dealing with disparate concepts, but fragments of knowledge.

Social Sciences, Formal Sciences, Natural Sciences, and Humanities and their countless subcategories are all part of a larger picture. Philosophy is ultimately the branch of this wider "science" which determines what the human role should be in a universe so much larger than our little planet. Philosophy is about the knowledge to determine how to apply knowledge "properly."

[Saturn]

People have the ability to impart meaning.

[Denny Crane!]

No I am particularly annoyed by some of the most famous philosophers hiding their texts in obscure and stupidly complicated by language.

It is easy to do, but in fact the best philosophy, doesn't need the obfuscation of bad writing and overcomplication.

I actually tried an experiment on this forum, there was an overly verbose wordy piece of crap in the Ethos. So I, and one other, posted something from a post modernist generator. I even got rep for it! It is hard to spot and you can hide mediocre philosophy in obtuse language and verbosity.

[OccidentisVir]

No I am particularly annoyed by some of the most famous philosophers hiding their texts in obscure and stupidly complicated by language.

It is easy to do, but in fact the best philosophy, doesn't need the obfuscation of bad writing and overcomplication.

Indeed, many a bad philosophy has been given a pretty face through false elegance, but disguising a vulgar ignorance as a simple truth is a far more common fault; this is just as much a pride of intellect as the former, but with the added fault of intellectual laziness. It is as if this man is saying, "Look how smart I am for seeing that the truth is so simple and easily expressed, while the rest of mankind think it is so hard."

[Denny Crane!]

Indeed, many a bad philosophy has been given a pretty face through false elegance, but disguising a vulgar ignorance as a simple truth is a far more common fault; this is just as much a pride of intellect as the former, but with the added fault of intellectual laziness. It is as if this man is saying, "Look how smart I am for seeing that the truth is so simple and easily expressed, while the rest of mankind think it is so hard."

That isn't a fault common to philosophy in my opinion. Most people who enter into the philosophical arena generally have enough of a grasp of language that allows them to express themselves cleanly and clearly without vulgarity. The question I assumed pertained to philosophical works. On the forums your point does indeed hold weight, particularly in the political arena (and not excluding politics in real life as well, where you have no happy medium, either relentless obfuscation or hideous simplicity masked in vulgarity).

[The Dude]

That isn't a fault common to philosophy in my opinion. Most people who enter into the philosophical arena generally have enough of a grasp of language that allows them to express themselves cleanly and clearly without vulgarity. The question I assumed pertained to philosophical works. On the forums your point does indeed hold weight, particularly in the political arena (and not excluding politics in real life as well, where you have no happy medium, either relentless obfuscation or hideous simplicity masked in vulgarity).

Well the thing with philosophy is that you can't oversimplify it too much either because if a theory's leading into a new way of thinking, you've got a situation where normal words don't adequately cover what's being discussed. Sometimes, you gotta step outside the boundaries of language a little bit and get creative. I agree though that a lot of quasi-intellectuals greatly enjoy pretending that they're the masters of language and intellect but that's just plain sophistry and was already seen through by Socrates in his day.

[Denny Crane!]

Well the thing with philosophy is that you can't oversimplify it too much either because if a theory's leading into a new way of thinking, you've got a situation where normal words don't adequately cover what's being discussed. Sometimes, you gotta step outside the boundaries of language a little bit and get creative. I agree though that a lot of quasi-intellectuals greatly enjoy pretending that they're the masters of language and intellect but that's just plain sophistry and was already seen through by Socrates in his day.

Well the difference is between someone like Daniel Gilbert who adequately explains very complicated notions of subjective phenomenon like emotions and relative stages of pure, synthetic and artificial happiness and the temporal nature and problems of our recollection of states in a way that anyone could grasp. Or someone like Derrida, I've already vented my opinions of post modernist philosophy in this thread and thoroughly fooled a few members of the forum by using randomised crappy language to make it seem like I was making a point, and this man is the father of it. He even had FOUCALT say his language was obscure. Fourcalt was not an easy read himself, and his linguistics would jump loops to describe his points. Yet even he thought Derrida was an idiot.

Michel Foucault once characterized Derrida's prose style to me as "obscurantisme terroriste." The text is written so obscurely that you can't figure out exactly what the thesis is (hence "obscurantisme") and when one criticizes it, the author says, "Vous m'avez mal compris; vous êtes idiot' (hence "terroriste")

and Searle (another man making hard ideas easy to understand, lectures available for free on the net btw)

...anyone who reads deconstructive texts with an open mind is likely to be struck by the same phenomena that initially surprised me: the low level of philosophical argumentation, the deliberate obscurantism of the prose, the wildly exaggerated claims, and the constant striving to give the appearance of profundity by making claims that seem paradoxical, but under analysis often turn out to be silly or trivial.

Yes you deal with complex topics, but no you do not have to get creative with language. Language is wonderfully complex enough to begin with, at times you will have to use language that may be polysyllabic because quite frankly nothing else will serve and you can't stick with the baby talk. But there is a world of difference from using terms out of necessity because it adds clarity and the people who would use sesquipedalian loquaciousness. As a new student of anatomy I am sometimes struck by the need to remember long complex latin words and if I hadn't been a student of etymology I wouldn't have understood the benefits.

If I was to see the Anterior Cruciate Ligament, then I would know it means former/before as opposed to posterior coming after or behind and to the rear of the object. I can also deduce that Cruciate is a cross between Crux and some kind of action word and thus I assume that it means a ligament forming a cross shape. So I am aware of the necessity for language but what I seek is the necessity for the language not the frivolous use of the words for the sake of the ego or the sake of the crap philosophy looking less like pseudo philosophy/science.

A predilection by the intelligentsia to engage in the manifestation of prolix exposition through a buzzword disposition form of communication notwithstanding the availability of more comprehensible diminutive alternatives.

In brief: "smart" characters using long words when short ones would be better.

[strategist.com]

Whenever I see a thread like that, I think, "that still doesn't answer a single important question about our existence" - "Why do we exist?", "Why don't I not exist?" "Why is there a concept of existence?" "What does that even mean anyway?"? Who cares about the how, it's the why we need to know, yet probably never will.

Does anyone else ever get this when they see for example, the current athaeneum thread about a new alternative to the big bang theory?

Not everything can be solved petri dish.