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

Please do not misunderstand me when I say this phrase and do not yell at me and tell me to leave the forum. Also, This is more of a freewrite then an opinion as i have not yet thought this through completly. It is a recent idea of mine. I may contradict myself a few times i dont know. Anyways:


Philosophy is a waste of time.


Yes, I understand philosophy and the questioning state of mind is a healthy thing. In fact, I truly do enjoy philsophical conversations. I enjoy this forum very much. But after proving everything exists, or doesnt exist, or the nature of evil, or the nature of good, or anything at all, does not life still go on in the exact same manner as it did before? Well yes it is known that some philsophers have changed the views of others and some mindsets have been changed, but have we ever come closer to some universal truth, or any usefull applications to the answers (or further multitude of questions) that we have uncovered? These peopel who have been able to change mindsets were able to do so, more because of their motivational aspects then their philsophical aspects. And really, the only reason people choose these philosophies at all is because they're only waiting for the right one that suits them to latch on too. Hitler had Nietzsche and was a great fan of his. If Hitler had never heard of Nietzsche, would anything have changed? I doubt it.

In the scheme of things, humanity still advances further through the discovery of sciences. Techinology is the ever changing tool of this society. Philosophy is not. It keeps us at the same conclusion that we were at before, life has not changed. Although, looking in on it in thought now, one (or myself) could argue that some philsophies have created forms of government. I really do not consider these philosophies. Or rather, I should probably change my above statement. Most philsophies are pointless. Political philosophy can have a great effect on the world. It is the Philosophies such as, Is there a god? Does anything truly exist? Is everything a matter of our perception? Is there a greater truth? Is there a consistent truth? What is knowledge? What is wisdom? the list goes on. Tell me, if any of these questions were answered, would life drastically change. Maybe if we were to disprove God then yes, there would be some uprising in some form, but say we were to prove it. nothing would really change because religions would still fight over who is the correct truth.


Actually I really do not have a good, formulated opinion together yet. I would like to hear others opinions on this subject. Maybe start a good discussion that i can formulate an opinion on. Philosophicus, I'd like to hear your take on this, you being a philsophy professor and writer and all that jazz.

'A waste of time' is doing something that serves no purpose. If people get enjoyment out of doing something, then it ceases to be 'a waste of time' as the end result is not nothingness.

To break 'philosophy' down to it's base level, you find the action of 'thinking'. Therefore, you are arguing that thinking is wrong if it brings about no change.

I think you need to think about that.

Bijan, you have raised a good point. I have also thought about this in the past: is philosophy making any progress or not? The embarrasing fact is that from the pre-socratic philosophers, through the great greek thinkers, up to today, not one of the most burning questions has yet been answered in a universally satisfying way. We still ask the same questions and come up with the same, sometimes contradictive, answers. Another interseting thing is the appearance of so-called new philosophies arising through the centuries - the ancient greeks covered absolutely every branch of philosophy imaginable. For example, the philosophy of post-modernism which is quintessentially the philosophy of doubt, subjectivity and relativity has already existed in the times of the greeks - I think it was Telemachus, if my mind doesn't fail me, who first exhibited the concept of subjective opinion. Existentialism is also just a new name for an old concept, closely linked to post-modernism. Even the philosophy of Kant, who many hail as the greatest modern philosopher, is almost a clone of the Forms theory of Plato. Kant talks about the universal concept of something, for instance, of Man - the nature of man, or Human Nature. The latter is exactly the same as Plato's Form, you might just as well say: the Form of Man - Form, Nature, universal concept is all one and the same at the core.

So, although there has not been any significant universal progress in philosophy as to answering the most fundamental questions of life, there is however meaning in philosophy: No individual can really live without a philosophy steering his life's decisions and opinions and actions. Ultimately it comes down to finding a meaning to live life - that you can only find through deep philosophical thought. One has to believe in something, whether that be a God, one's own moral definitions, art, etc. Objectively, philosophy has no meaning, but subjectively, people still choose to live by some or other philosophy, even if others disagree with them. Absolute, universal progress in philosophy is only possible if a unanimous agreement on all the fundamental questions can be reached. That will never happen, so it comes down to the individual in the sense that the individual must find the philosophy which makes sense to him. You cannot live without any philosophy at all, as that will leave you with a void as to the meaning of your life, and as to the daily decisions you have to make and the problems that confront you. Your actions and reactions in life is determined by the underlining code of conduct, pertaining to your moral and cosmic outlook on life, where this 'code of conduct' or behaviour is determined by your philosophy of life.

There will always be philosophers in the world, because the intellectual human being has an irrational drive to be rational; he is always frustrated with the absurdity of existence he is faced with; he will always look for 'answers', even if he never obtains them.

Bijan, if one is absolute familiar with every possibility in the universe, then one can seek other things which interest you. But I am sure that we, humans, have not reach that stage yet, and it is not possible for us to reach that stage without that so called "technology"- which I meant was the passing of information, without the need for school, and "waste"(need) of much time.

One only argues that things are boring, that we are not making any progress, or you are not feeling any excitement, the reason behind that is that you are familiar with the area you were interested in. So I suggest that you try to explore more of the other part of life, as there is a road of possibilities reaching "infinate".

Many average people/stereotype people have only ventured in the lower part of life, or hierarchy of life that they knew of, and die without knowing the "truth", and the magnificence of life.

But then one can argue that the goal of life is fufilling one's purpose, without the necessary of knowing the truth...

You know that saying "The goal of life is to fulfill one'S purpose" is just well weird, since it doesn'T answer anything it's actually just a rephrasing of the question, you might want to think aboot that again. Who gives you that purpose? What is it? How do you find out?

Philosophy is like building a weapon, physical evidence is like ammunition for that weapon. Philosophy is like building a cart, physical evidence is like a horse.
Try to physically apply your -philosophy- conclusions to something, Bijan . (blah, I can't spell the right word) Test stuff out until you get results. Of course, be responsible and don't hurt youself or anyone else in the process. Tangible results prove your point to yourself and others.

Throughout history, many advances in social structure have their grounding in major shifts in philosophical thinking. As an area of inquiry, philosophy touches most other disciplines. Even today, researchers in philosophy study the human mind, language, art/aesthetics, biology, physics, mathematics, economics, politics, law, history, psychology, the physical and social sciences in general, logic, artificial intelligence, ethics, politics, and religion.

Philosophicus put it the best I believe. And I honestly had not thought of it that way. Although, I still believe many philosophies do just borderline on the absurd, I was thinking too much in the fashion of seeking a tangible end result. All right this thread is done. haha

sigh.... purpose... is one made up on ones own.... an aim of oneself.
example---> I will marry that girl. And, I mean it is culculated in percentage, wether you set it as a piriority or just a "bonus".

another good example would be if your family suddenly died, then you have lost all hope, and you wouldn't want to live, without them. Then you would have made your aim of life subconsciously as your family..
I hope this answers your question.

i just fell without it how would we ened up saying and doing some of the things we do it being a waste of time means life being a wate of time that sounds quite wrong but hey the freedom of speech

Philosophy is not a waste of time, without philosophy we will not have science, politics, laws, or anything else. It all came from philosophy. I specially liked the point that Ou Be Low hoo brought ; to say that "philosophy is a waste of time. " is already a philosophy in itself.

But it's all subjective..... anyway.....that's how the arguments always end.....

philosophy is intergal to science. We must first ponder the questions before we desire to seek answers...........then set about conducting controlled experiments to render the answers we speak.

without philosophy, all scientific data would simply be stumbled upon by dumb luck.............

to attain any answer, you must first have the question. To first have the question, you must have a desire for the knowledge it may yeild.

Originally posted by debbiejo
But it's all subjective..... anyway.....that's how the arguments always end.....

Thats very true ! Sometimes we even forget what we were talking about...

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Thats very true ! Sometimes we even forget what we were talking about... Yeah....it goes round and round and round...

i think philosopy is the PURPOSE of our life

How can there ever be real meaning and resolution to philosophizing if we can never be assured in an absolute sense by the infinity of being as such that our ideas are correct and real? If we are merely minutely small parts of the whole of existence and not the 'god's' of it, can there be any meaning to ponder the truth and meaning of life? Is there a solution to all the problems of philosophy, and if not, is there meaning in it?

So you believe we are GODS?

Good one! Maybe we are and just don't know it...

It sounds possible, but I don't feel very godly angel_not.

I myself beleive that we aren't gods, but we are special, and our souls are kind of linked to the universe. And i also believe there is a God.

What does it mean to say that there is a God? What is the meaning of the existence of a God? Does it mean anything if one claims that there is a God? Does it mean anything different to say that there isn't one? Why would there be a God? What meaning is there in having a God who created the world? Why create? For what reason must there be a reason to life?

Originally posted by Wonderer
What does it mean to say that there is a God?
Very little. One can say a lot and prove very little.
Originally posted by Wonderer
What is the meaning of the existence of a God?
Also very little. Existence has no bearing on whether or not the entity takes an active role in the universe that would elicit meaningful consequences.
Originally posted by Wonderer
Does it mean anything if one claims that there is a God?
No people can claim whatever they want but claims are meaningless without corresponding evidence.
Originally posted by Wonderer
Does it mean anything different to say that there isn't one?
No people can claim whatever they want but claims are meaningless without corresponding evidence.
Originally posted by Wonderer
Why would there be a God?
Man's egotism.
Originally posted by Wonderer
What meaning is there in having a God who created the world?
Nothing other than it serves man's egotism.
Originally posted by Wonderer
Why create?
Why not?
Originally posted by Wonderer
For what reason must there be a reason to life?
Life is what you make of it.

i think we technicaly are Gods because we have the ability to create things out of nothing, even the existance of God. I don't believe that God created us, but rather that we created him and that from extension he created us because of our belife in his existence. It might not make sense but it makes sense to me.

People who have cut their teeth on philosophical problems of rationality, knowledge, perception, free will and other minds are well placed to think better about problems of evidence, decision making, responsibility and ethics that life throws up. We may never arrive at any final answers, but in many ways it is the journey which is most important, not the destination. Philosophy, in one way or another, ends up touching upon nearly every aspect of human life.

Originally posted by Wonderer
What does it mean to say that there is a God? What is the meaning of the existence of a God? Does it mean anything if one claims that there is a God? Does it mean anything different to say that there isn't one? Why would there be a God? What meaning is there in having a God who created the world? Why create? For what reason must there be a reason to life?

1. To say there is a god is to say that we are important, to say that we aren't just another grain of sand on the beach.

2. God is here to protect the universe and keep it in order

3. Ofcourse it means something, you can claim there is a god and you could find out when you die. If you claim there is a god that actually doesn't exist and that someone elses god exists you will probably be tortured for eternity, if you was right then you will be happy for eternity. If you don't believe in a god atall it's either torture, or torture .

4."What meaning is there in having a God who created the world?"
God decided to make us and the world, he decided to have children technically.

5. he created because he wanted to.

6. You think on the same lines as i, and i asure you there is more reason for our existance in god than there is without. There is a reason to life as it is like a test, the good seeds go to the good place and the bad seeds go to the incinerator

I see you also believe the universe revolves around reason, and you know what? I believe you are absolutely right. There is a purpose to life because life is precious and life is precious because god made us as his children, plus god set a plan for our life, ever heard of death of old age? Well murder or suicide goes against this plan that god made for us.

But no god means there is no preciousness about life because it's all over the universe and nobody made us which doesn't make us special in any way. The universe was just luck, we are just random life forms and it won't effect the universe if we all DIE.

i agree with the possibility that there is a univrsal god who comes in different forms to different cultures and to a certain degree believe that gods represent different aspects of the scientific world. But the idea of one special god thats better than all other gods is pure nonsense. The reason for why science is more efficient than philosophy and religion is that

A: it gives answers
& B: can be proven more than once

Has the Big Bang been created in a lab? Has it been proven more than once? Has evolution been created in a lab? Has evolution been proven more han once?

No, the big band is a theory. I do not deny that. But certain things are pure fact.

Exactly, now does science officially say that a god doesn't exist? Is it proven against in a laboratory?

No, but certain things that are proven facts do not fit with the so called "facts" that religion promotes. I believe in the possibility of a god but not one specified within any religiouse text or organized group.

It proves The Bible factually inaccurate...

May you please point out these certain features that science does not agree with.

May I remind you that there are things which are way beyond our knowledge and understanding such as Worm Holes

Age of the earth, origin of species, worldwide flood, to name but a few.

People being made of dust and breath, magical apples, people being created seperately from animals, I can go on and on.

The bible is simply a mythology. The ideas are not meant to be seen as facts, they are symbols meant to be understood individualy.

Originally posted by Legend Of Chibi
May I remind you that there are things which are way beyond our knowledge and understanding such as Worm Holes
You're a constant reminder that some things are beyond certain people's understanding.
BTW Wormholes are theorised - to my knowledge none have been found to exist yet.

What do you mean 'created seperately from animals'?

And as a scientific fact we are made of dust.

Magical Apples?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
You're a constant reminder that some things are beyond certain people's understanding.
BTW Wormholes are theorised - to my knowledge none have been found to exist yet.

Then why do people say they exist?

Originally posted by Legend Of Chibi
And as a scientific fact we are made of dust.
Case in point.

The bible suports the idea that humans are above animals and were created with the divinity of god. there is also a section of genesis where a peice of fruit is eaten to bring knowledge. You can not honestly belive that there was actual knowledge bearing fruit, it was a symbol.

Exactly, It WAS a symbol, It was just a test to see if they would eat from it or not, before they did eat when god told them not to they didn't have The Knowledge Of Good And Evil, but once they disobeyed god they did have the knowledge.

And what's so wrong in being above the Animals?

its not wrong its just not correct.... if that makes sense

If they lacked knowledge of good and evil then why would they listen to God - they don't know whether he's good or evil?

So you agree with evolution too? rolleyes1

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
If they lacked knowledge of good and evil then why would they listen to God they don't know whether he's good or evil?

Because he was the only one they knew to be boss.

Originally posted by Legend Of Chibi
And what's so wrong in being above the Animals?

It leads to great suffering. If I think I'm better than someone of something, I will do things to that person or animal or thing that I wouldn't normally do. This bad action brings back to me bad results, always.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It leads to great suffering. If I think I'm better than someone of something, I will do things to that person or animal or thing that I wouldn't normally do. This bad action brings back to me bad results, always.

Good point, are you a vegetarian?

But even god believes that it's good to be nice to those who are less.

Originally posted by Legend Of Chibi
Because he was the only one they knew to be boss.
The serpent (another needless vilification) was there too apparently. They wouldn't know that the serpent was evil.

i got no idea of what you just said chibi

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The serpent (another needless vilification) was there too apparently. They wouldn't know that the serpent was evil.

Yeah, but the first one who gave them orders was god whom they clearly didn't want to betray. But because they didn't have the knowledge is why they actually ate from the tree.

Originally posted by Superfly4000
i got no idea of what you just said chibi

I know, but i've editted it

Originally posted by Legend Of Chibi
Yeah, but the first one who gave them orders was god whom they clearly didn't want to betray.
Betrayal isn't a relevant concept to one who has no knowledge of the differences between what is good, what is evil and what is everything in between.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Betrayal isn't a relevant concept to one who has no knowledge of the differences between what is good, what is evil and what is everything in between.

I know, but he told them not too, they might not have known if it was bad or good but they still did what he said.

Originally posted by Legend Of Chibi
I know, but he told them not too, they might not have known if it was bad or good but they still did what he said.
Obedience isn't a relevant concept to one who has no knowledge of the differences between what is good, what is evil and what is everything in between.

There is a difference between Good or evil and Right or Wrong.

Somewhere stealing might be right, or murder.
Theres what someone says you can/can't do = Right or Wrong
And there's what you personally think you can/can't do = Good or evil

Since we are off topic, let me add what I think the story of Adam and Eve means; there was a time when we humans found food in nature (the garden) and we had no possessions. We then changed to an agrarian society and had to have things. When you have things, other people can want those things and take them from us. This is the first sin, the burden of having things.

Originally posted by Legend Of Chibi
There is a difference between Good or evil and Right or Wrong.

Somewhere stealing might be right, or murder.
Theres what someone says you can/can't do = Right or Wrong
And there's what you personally think you can/can't do = Good or evil
I'm sorry but this post makes very little sense. You're trying to define synonyms as having different denotations.

Just because the rules in one place say you aren't allowed guns doesn't mean somewhere else has to aswell.
In one place you can be good for doing something which is wrong in another place.

Right or Wrong=Rules
Good or Evil=Not Rules

It's the knowledge of GOOD AND EVIL not Right or Wrong.

The nouns "right" and "wrong" can easily be applied to "morals". Right and good can have synonymistic denotation, as can wrong and evil.
And I still don't see the point of your post - words can be used in different ways... so what?

They didn't have the knowledge and that is why they actually ate from the tree.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The nouns "right" and "wrong" can easily be applied to "morals". Right and good can have synonymistic denotation, as can wrong and evil.
And I still don't see the point of your post - words can be used in different ways... so what?

I think it's a rationalization for his point of view.

Anyways, just because he didn't want to betray him, doesn't mean he's being good.

Originally posted by Legend Of Chibi
Anyways, just because he didn't want to betray him, doesn't mean he's being good.

OK, you lost me. I don't think we are going to get anywhere.

Nevermind

Originally posted by Superfly4000
i agree with the possibility that there is a univrsal god who comes in different forms to different cultures and to a certain degree believe that gods represent different aspects of the scientific world. But the idea of one special god thats better than all other gods is pure nonsense. The reason for why science is more efficient than philosophy and religion is that

A: it gives answers
& B: can be proven more than once

But you understand that when you say that science is more efficient than religion, its just because you believe this as a religious person believes in God right ?

That was my point, in the end its all about faith. Science, religion, and philosophy are just different models, but who gives sense to them is us, and we made that by our intuition, and faith only, not proof. Proof is only the place were we do start to make deductions, but first we have to believe that proof have sense.