Bad philosophical questions

[sin_is_fun]

I always am wary of people who tell me why I exist.They will first ask me "Do you know who you are?" I will tell them my name and my family name but they will not be satisfied with it."No,that is not what I asked" they will say.'Do you know your true self,your real nature,the real you?".I will then give various answers like 'I am an American' ,'I am a human' and 'I am a businessman' and so on.

They wont be satisfied with any answer I give.They will reject every answer I give with a smile."No,no thats not you..." they will say.Then finally they will give me the answer.They will tell me who I am and why I exist in this earth.Then they will ask me "what is the purpose of your life?".If I say 'nothing' they will be shocked."Nothing?Do you live for nothing?" they will scream.

"Listen son,life has a purpose and that purpose is -------------" they will say.

Depending upon who you talk to the purpose of life will be different.A christian will obviously say 'The purpose of life is to attain salvation'

A zen buddhist will say 'To know your true self'

A philanthrope will say 'To serve mankind'

Not only will these people give me a purpose to live for,they will then proceed to chart out a program to help me achieve that goal.They will tell me that their way is the best to attain that purpose.They will explain with scriptural proof how other ways are useless or dangerous .They will cite big names and will say "see these people went in this path and guarantee that it is the best path.So follow this path".Implied will be the question 'Are you intelligent than these great men?'

They will then proceed to list out the benefits of following that path.I will be promised with everlasting happiness if I follow that path.That path will not solve my current 'small problems' but will solve my biggest problem,the most important problem,they will say.Most of the times I wont even realize that I had such a problem,but these people will create such a problem and will insist that 'this is the most important problem which you have.(usually sin,impending hell are the most important problems which I have).Following this path will not remove my small useless problems like 'divorce,failing health,school etc'.But the path will take care of the 'most important problem' which I am not aware of.

If I hesitate then threats will follow.Eternal hell and damnation and so many threats will be used to make me to realize my mistake and to follow the prescribed path.

I am bored to death.I think that questions like "Who am I" , "what is the purpose of life" are meaningless questions.They are bad philosphical questions.There are hundreds of answers to these questions and hundreds of official ways to attain these purposes.

Many people waste their lives in searching for non existent answers to ridiculous questions.They sit in meditation for years and years and finally jump up and say "eureka" and give an answer.Some people believe them and run behind them.In the end there are multiple answers to bad philosphical questions and no answers are right.

For example one such bad philosphical question was

"why do people suffer?"

There are hundreds of answers for this question.

"Its because eve ate the apple" say our christian friends
'Its because of desire" say our buddhist friends.
"Its because of capitalism" say our communist friends

"How to remove sorrow and bring in everlasting joy?''.This is another bad philosphical question.

Answers will differ like 'jesus', 'krishna','remove desires' 'know your true self' and so on.

Now after reading all these attempts to answer these bad philsophical questions I have come to the following conclusions.

1.There is nothing called as true self.

2.There is no purpose for existence of life.we come,live,enjoy and go away,thats all.

3.Its a waste of time to try to find out answers to bad philsophical questions.It is better to enjoy what we have and feel satisfied.


what do you all think?Should these bad philsophical questions be pursued anymore?Should we believe in unknown big problems and the official paths to attain eternal, everlasting happiness?

[QED]

I agree that many of these sorts of enquiries are bad philosophical questions. In another thread I remarked that Prince Charles would have great difficulty in asking himself why it was that he that became the son of the Queen of England. But there is one big question that deserves to be considered -- why is there something rather than nothing. Theists get a head-start on this one because they think they've worked out that there's a great Swiss-Army knife in the sky that's responsible for everything. But they fail to see that we might just as well swap the tool for the product, particularly seeing as how the product would seem to be simpler than the tool they suppose created it.

[sin_is_fun]

But there is one big question that deserves to be considered -- why is there something rather than nothing.

Thats a good question.But I guess that it should be asked to the right field.Maybe scientists will give an acceptable answer to this.If we ask our theistic friends they will give an unsatisfactory answer.After giving such an answer they will insist that what they say is the "TRUTH" and will start quoting 'scriptural evidence' as proof.

Some bad philsophical questions are actually good scientific questions.For example "why do people commit sin?"

I believe sociology and psychology can answer this question more satsifactorily.But our theistic friends will not accept those answers.They will give the apple and serpent reason.

"How was world created?"-this is a very bad philosohical question,but is a very good scientific question.Religion cannot answer this question.Only science can.

Maybe religion should limit the questions it answers.If it tells people 'How to reach heaven?' most of us will not object.But once it starts telling us 'How heaven works?' then we have objections to it.

If religion stops meddling with biology,sociology and physics we will get answers for these bad philosophical questions, I guess.

[Magick]

I have come to the following conclusions.

1.There is nothing called as true self.

2.There is no purpose for existence of life.we come,live,enjoy and go away,thats all.

3.Its a waste of time to try to find out answers to bad philsophical questions.It is better to enjoy what we have and feel satisfied.


what do you all think?Should these bad philsophical questions be pursued anymore?Should we believe in unknown big problems and the official paths to attain eternal, everlasting happiness?

I think that should be up to each one of us to decide. Obviously, if you get into a religious or philosophical discussion of your own free will, like we do here, you must expect that not everyone will agree with you, and will try to make you see why. But I think we've all met the types of people who will "preach" to you about whatever it is they believe in, without being asked... and that's not just limited to the "big" topics, it's the same when someone keeps talking about their favorite band that you just have to listen to, or feel that it is very important for you to see why "Star Wars" is so much better than "Star Trek"... whatever it is they've based a great part of their personality on, they need you to believe in or like it too, because in a way, that's really you saying you believe in or like them, and that makes them feel more secure about themselves. And when you don't, their reactions are aggresive, because you've actually just attacked their identity. Ok at least that's my personal opinion, I'm not going to speak for everyone else, but that's just how I personally see it.

So again - it should always be a personal choise if we want to ask these questions or not. Your personal freedom to choose not to should certainly be respected, without people telling you that you're wrong, that you'll burn in hell or that you just aren't intelligent enough to understand the truth. But on the other hand, those who have chosen to try to find those answers, should be able to do so without being told that they're dumb and naive. No matter what side you're on, that's an attack on someone's personal freedom.

Maybe it's an odd thing to say this on a discussion board, but we're all here because we've chosen to be here - in "real life", I would never start "preaching" my beliefs or opinions to someone who didn't actually want to hear them. Ok, it probably has happened now and then, I'm not perfect... but at least I try not to!

[sin_is_fun]

whatever it is they've based a great part of their personality on, they need you to believe in or like it too, because in a way, that's really you saying you believe in or like them, and that makes them feel more secure about themselves. And when you don't, their reactions are aggresive, because you've actually just attacked their identity.

I did not attack their identity here.I also did not say anything about a debate forum where we come to debate our views.I gave my opinion about people who insist that their version is the TRUTH and how all others are wrong and how they offer the only path for eternal bliss.

So again - it should always be a personal choise if we want to ask these questions or not. Your personal freedom to choose not to should certainly be respected, without people telling you that you're wrong, that you'll burn in hell or that you just aren't intelligent enough to understand the truth. But on the other hand, those who have chosen to try to find those answers, should be able to do so without being told that they're dumb and naive. No matter what side you're on, that's an attack on someone's personal freedom.

who said anything about such people being dumb and naive?People have freedom to commit suicide in some countries and to use drugs in some countries.I dont care what anybody does as long as it doesnt affect me.

Maybe it's an odd thing to say this on a discussion board, but we're all here because we've chosen to be here - in "real life", I would never start "preaching" my beliefs or opinions to someone who didn't actually want to hear them. Ok, it probably has happened now and then, I'm not perfect... but at least I try not to!

We can preach.we can even say 'people who dont believe in me will go to hell'.we can say anything.

Since this is a debate board,I said what I thought about this attitude which some people have.

[harvey1]

I agree that many of these sorts of enquiries are bad philosophical questions. In another thread I remarked that Prince Charles would have great difficulty in asking himself why it was that he that became the son of the Queen of England. But there is one big question that deserves to be considered -- why is there something rather than nothing. Theists get a head-start on this one because they think they've worked out that there's a great Swiss-Army knife in the sky that's responsible for everything. But they fail to see that we might just as well swap the tool for the product, particularly seeing as how the product would seem to be simpler than the tool they suppose created it.

QED, you're acting like the kid who isn't winning so they throw the game on the floor. I would say that the reason that atheists complain about questions is because they can't answer them with their deficient philosophy. Theism answers the questions not because we appeal to a great Swiss-Army knife, rather it is because it is the answer.

I think atheists should just give up the ghost. The philosophy is wrong, it should be very obvious to you by now. We've seen your answer for the universe: something much more complicated called a multiverse must exist without cause. And, why does it exist? Because if it didn't atheism would be wrong. And, rather than just admit you're wrong and change your philosophy, you just press on and this means stifling the asking of questions. This is a totalitarian path that I think is one of the face cards of atheism.

[sin_is_fun]

QED, you're acting like the kid who isn't winning so they throw the game on the floor. I would say that the reason that atheists complain about questions is because they can't answer them with their deficient philosophy. Theism answers the questions not because we appeal to a great Swiss-Army knife, rather it is because it is the answer.

There are hundreds of answers.To say "this is the answer" we need strong evidence.Atheism isnt about answering wrong questions.Its about asking the right question to the right field.Atheism is not supposed to answer 'How world camne into existence' or 'why people suffer'.We left those questions to science and sociology.

I think atheists should just give up the ghost. The philosophy is wrong, it should be very obvious to you by now. We've seen your answer for the universe: something much more complicated called a multiverse must exist without cause. And, why does it exist? Because if it didn't atheism would be wrong. And, rather than just admit you're wrong and change your philosophy, you just press on and this means stifling the asking of questions. This is a totalitarian path that I think is one of the face cards of atheism.

anybody can ask questions.Anybody can answer them.But what evidence is there for the answer?Something other than universe must exist-fine.This is what hundreds of religions tell me.They also say that they clearly explain what it is and say how the other competing explanations are wrong.

But nobody gives any sort of explanations.They just have their answers.They say I should believe in what they say because they believed it without any explanations and that is how I am supposed to believe it.

[Magick]

I did not attack their identity here.I also did not say anything about a debate forum where we come to debate our views.I gave my opinion about people who insist that their version is the TRUTH and how all others are wrong and how they offer the only path for eternal bliss.

I didn't say that you attacked anyone, and that was exactly the reason why I mentioned that there's a difference between discussing these things in a place like this, and preaching to someone who didn't "ask for it". I did that to make sure you didn't think I was talking about you personally - I guess it didn't work

who said anything about such people being dumb and naive?

Nobody, but in your post, you talked about how some people will judge you for not sharing their beliefs - the "dumb and naive" part is something I've heard many atheists accuse believers of any religion of being, just as some Christians will judge you for not sharing their beliefs. I was talking about people in general in my post, not you personally. And your question was if we should ask these spiritual questions at all - my point was that it's a personal choise, and that just as nobody should tell you what to believe, nobody should tell anyone what not to believe either - there's no difference.

We can preach.we can even say 'people who dont believe in me will go to hell'.we can say anything.

Since this is a debate board,I said what I thought about this attitude which some people have.

And that was my point exactly - this is a place to discuss, so I didn't pick on you for saying anything - I talked about those people who insists on preaching to you in so-called "real life", even when they know you don't want to hear it. Again, I was not talking about you personally.

[QED]

QED, you're acting like the kid who isn't winning so they throw the game on the floor. I would say that the reason that atheists complain about questions is because they can't answer them with their deficient philosophy. Theism answers the questions not because we appeal to a great Swiss-Army knife, rather it is because it is the answer.

I have to wonder at the number of times you feel the need to call my world-view names to reinforce your argument. If my philosophy is so deficient surely your arguments shouldn't need such reinforcements

I think atheists should just give up the ghost. The philosophy is wrong, it should be very obvious to you by now. We've seen your answer for the universe: something much more complicated called a multiverse must exist without cause.

Seeing as we are talking about complexity, would you like to tell me how we would go about assessing the relative complexity of all the contenders for this uncaused event?

And, why does it exist? Because if it didn't atheism would be wrong. And, rather than just admit you're wrong and change your philosophy, you just press on and this means stifling the asking of questions. This is a totalitarian path that I think is one of the face cards of atheism.

Oh, great argument. If we re-word that ever-so-slightly it can be used just as effectively against theism. Are you running out of good arguments already?

[harvey1]

I have to wonder at the number of times you feel the need to call my world-view names to reinforce your argument. If my philosophy is so deficient surely your arguments shouldn't need such reinforcements

You think saying that a particular philosophy is deficient is names? I'm sorry you take as that, it's nothing personal. I think you're a great guy, but I just find it bizarre that people want to suppress philosophical questions because their philosophy has a difficult time answering the questions. That's why I take exception to this kind of post.

Seeing as we are talking about complexity, would you like to tell me how we would go about assessing the relative complexity of all the contenders for this uncaused event?

Can you tell me how we go about accessing the relative veracity of all the contenders that best account for the universe? We look at what we think to be the case, and we project backwards in time and try and figure out which view offers the best possibility. Hence, we have tools such as the criterion of simplicity, algorithmic complexity, fundamental assumptions needed, deductions made, consistent construction of the evidence, etc., and based on all those tools we can argue one philosophy over another. Matter of factly some people hold better philosophies than others. What establishes them as better is the use of these tools. We might all be wrong. The universe really might have been created 5 minutes ago stocked with memories. Or, we might really be brains in vats (or just one brain in a vat). Hence, relative complexity is based on the observations around us. Algorithmic complexity is based on how we observe nature working in front of us. Obviously we don't see anything as complex as a multiverse without an explanation. Therefore the criterion of simplicity requires that we consider the simplest explanation. This is why we can rule out universes that existed 5 minutes ago or multiverses that exist without explanation.

If we re-word that ever-so-slightly it can be used just as effectively against theism. Are you running out of good arguments already?

Hey, if theists post a thread saying that certain questions shouldn't be discussed because they are questions having "non existent answers to ridiculous questions," then I'll jump on them too. How can a philosophical question not have an answer? It is either right, wrong, or misconstrued. If it is misconstrued, then it's on the onus on the one holding that philosophy to show why that question is misconstrued. Often it is misconstrued within that philosophical view. For example, positivists were famous for this. They considered all metaphysical questions to be meaningless. They acted with the same indignation when someone would argue for a metaphysical answer. Of course, positivism was eventually defeated, but we see that questions are often philosophy-dependent. What is irrelevant for one philosophy is quite relevant for others. If atheists are bothered by such questions, I think it is a deficiency of those atheists (and/or their views) who feel bewildered in being able to answer them.