Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Philosophy faces a crucial problem, the problem of meaning and doubt. If any statement is merely a (subjective) opinion, then what are we left with? What is the worth in one opinion against another? The only real guideline we have is logic: an argument or theory has to at least be logically sound to be of value. But just because an argument is logical doesn't mean it holds on to absolute truth - the argument merely makes good sense in a hypothetical sense. Philosophy is after all, the quest for absolute truth, is it not? But absolute universal truth can never be reached when one logical opinion is as good as another. If everything is subjective, how can objectivity ever be attained? How will philosophy ever be satisfied? In the end you choose what makes the most sense to you.

We can draw the following analogy:

Opinions are like the leaves of a tree - each leave trying to catch a little bit, or as much of the light from the sun as possible - trying to get to the canopy of truth. Ultimately, there's just one big tree of diverse shades of green, posing as the only absolute: the struggle for the limelight...

Does anyone share this problem? Does anyone have an answer?

logic... how can one tell or define logic....? Why can one understand something? The only reason one can understand, is by the 5 senses.... but then the future might produce something, maybe a chip, to imput kowledge, without using the basic and natural senses for logic to take place.

To solve the problem of philosophy, one must be familiar with it... merely just that....

The brain uses Logic to analyze sense data from the senses, doesn't it? You yourself apply logic to distinguish whether something makes sense or not. A simple example: All men are green; I am a man: therefor I am green. - That's a logically sound statement.

yea you are right.. what is wrong with me!@!!! Forgot about the brain... lol ... what I was trying to say is that to imput logic into the brain, one must use those 5 senses, but the future might not make any of those senses essential for us to know logic.

What I am imputing is that it is just the way of nature, without artificial intefering...

the problem of philosophy is all the philosophers

The problem is familiarity. That itself leads to the truth. Today I made another proverb or maybe not a proverb...

"what you fight, is your own familiarity"..

Intelligent observation there.

The problem with philosophy is that no answer is ever satasfactory. There is always another question to ask, if not many more questions to ask.

The Problem with Philosophy is that no one knows how to actually define Philosophy.
Another Problem is that there can never be an answert to Philosophical Questions.
One more is that there are too many dumbasses that call themself Philosophers.
A Problem is that most people don'T understand half of the stuff the great Philosophers said before them.

The search for T-R-U-T-H



Not necessarily. Answers are there. They will, if decovered, give philosphers more proverbial ammo.



Can you provide evidence to substantiate this remark?



"Whatever you have to say, odds are somebody smarter then you already said it."

Well isn'T everyone searching for Truth? Isn'Tr that what we call thinking basically? There is a difference between some search for the Truth and real Philosophy.

Well the problem is that answers for the big problems like meaning of life, perception, question of God and all this stff is just not profable, everyone got a theory. But no one has any real evidence, and even if there was some, Berkeley would come the way and say err no there is no existence after all all we know is jus imagination, this seriously is a problem of Philosophy.

Yeah here I am, I am an idiot, I call myself philosopher and spam some forum with stupid shit I think is important.

Well this is true but to taslk aboot philosophy you should know a little bit aboot the people that made it.

Not necessarily. Everyone needs to label things. I mean, me thinking about a Steak Sub is not deemed to be a search for truth.... or is it?



That is the real snag, isn't it? You develope a great theory, but there is no evidence to substantiate anything.



But since it is important to you, it is not, as you so affectionately deemed it, Stupid Shit now is it?



That goes without saying, I would have hoped anyways.

The leaf at the top catches the most sunlight.




*climbs onto the roof*

Opinions are also like *ssholes, everybody's got one.

And they all stink.

The problem with philosophy is that everyone else is wrong. Every philosopher knew they were right, and the other guy was wrong. They reached a level of enlightenment, but stopped there, they never bothered to explore past the pinnacle of illumination. being in this state, they were prone to humanities emotions in their findings of life, or i should say questions. Many Philosophers were flawed with vanity in their writings. So i would say that the problem with philosophy is humanity. I know that is a type of contradiction, but at the core of philosophy is knowledge, or the search of knowledge. however, beyond the height of enlightenment is not needing to know. Everything always comes back to itself in some way or another. Plato spoke about this a bit.

Philosophy is a type of inquiry, is about asking questions, questions which - as we all know - may never actually get final answers.
Asking such questions is not designed to destroy truth or belief, but instead to ensure that belief rests upon genuine truth and is genuinely reasonable.
The point is to aid the constructive aspect of philosophy, developing an accurate and productive picture of reality. Much of the history of philosophy involves trying to develop systems of understanding which can withstand the hard questions of critical philosophy.
In the end, the hope of philosophy is to understand, understand ourselves, understand our world, understand our values and the entirety of existence around us.
There is little point in critiquing the ideas and proposals of others without having something substantive to offer instead, just as there is little point in offering ideas without being willing to both critique them yourself and having others provide their critiques.

What you said is very true... to understand the world around us...

my proverb--> "the truth can be define by different levels of familiarity"
What results that one can find in the search for the truth, will be viewed differently according to their familiarity on the subject... that's why we came up with "everyone has different views".. that is what I believe..