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?

[ST88]

"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?

Great questions, sin_is_fun. I think that trying to answer these questions leads down the path of irrationality. And sometimes it can be very strict dogmatism, having led the questioner entirely away from the original question and down into the muck. Language is structured such that a great many nonsense questions can be asked and statements made. And it appears that the brain is structured to make sense out of whatever disparate elements are available to it, regardless of whether those elements actually point to anything.

That being said, placebo-inspired happiness seems indistinguishable from actual happiness. Philosophically, these questions have little use anymore, but I'd guess that most people still try to answer them because it is central to their own sense of self. Indoctrination is a scary thing.

[vacantcardboardbox]

I resent the numerous members that post threads describing their personal beliefs that they think are so incredibly reolutionary, and yet, could be summed up with one word.

In this case, it's existentialism.

We didn't need the long-winded post about your philosophy.

[ST88]

I resent the numerous members that post threads describing their personal beliefs that they think are so incredibly reolutionary, and yet, could be summed up with one word.

In this case, it's existentialism.

We didn't need the long-winded post about your philosophy.

Why, hello there, vacantcardboardbox.

People are free to post their beliefs here, so you might see some of them coinciding with existing philosophies. That's just the nature of human existence. If people want to share them with us, well, hey, that's great, I say. If you would like to take issue with something substantive in the thread, then by all means. But please remember that we are here as civil debaters having conversations about various topics that involve personal belief systems. Additionally, posting to this forum about such things is generally encouraged. Insulting remarks are frowned upon.

Some of us do not recall our high school English class lessons on what existentialism is. Could you sum it up for us to compare?

[vacantcardboardbox]

You learned about Existentialism in English class?

What high school did you go to?

[Cephus]

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.

Sorry Harvey, that's just ridiculous. It's theists who have no answers, all they can do is make empty claims over and over again. If you had any facts, you could just present them and that would be the end of the argument. Unfortunately for you, you have nothing. You've got smoke and mirrors and poor philosophical reasoning, which is painfully obvious by reading any of your posts.

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.

Sorry, that was 'theists should give up the ghost' right? At the very core of theism, you've got nothing but wishful thinking. Your answer for the universe is laughable. You don't know what happened so you invent something out of thin air and expect people to fall for your ridiculous explanation. The ones that are asking all the questions are atheists and the ones with no answers, or a whole lot of hand waving and nothing of substance, are people like you, Harvey.

You just don't realize how ridiculous it makes you look.

[QED]

Cephus, please don't be making personal attacks Like all of us harvey1 has his own worldview and has made his case here. His bold assertion of the fact that Atheism is an untenable philosophy is bound to stir the passions, but he thinks he has a right to make this claim because nobody has been able to convince him that there is a good enough reason for atheism. Why not give him some good reasons of your own?

[ST88]

Because my offer of explaining existentialism has been refused, I'll do it myself.

from Wikipedia:

"Existence precedes essence"

Among the most famous and influential existentialist propositions is Sartre's dictum, "existence precedes and rules essence", which is generally taken to mean that there is no pre-defined essence to humanity except that which we make for ourselves. Since Sartrean existentialism does not acknowledge the existence of a god or of any other determining principle, human beings are free to do as they choose. The most programmatic and straightforward statement of this principle is in his 1946 lecture "Existentialism as a Humanism."

Since there is no predefined human nature or ultimate evaluation beyond that which humans project onto the world, people may only be judged or defined by their actions and choices, and human choices are the ultimate evaluator. This concept spins from Nietzsche's concept of eternal return—the idea that "things lose values because they cease to exist". If all things were to continually exist then they would all burden us with a tremendous level of importance, but because things come to pass, and no longer exist, they lose their value. The concept of existence preceding essence is important because it describes the only conceivable reality as the judge of good or evil. If things simply "are", without directive, purpose or overall truth, then truth (or essence) is only the projection of that which is a product of existence, or collective experiences. For truth to exist, existence has to exist before it, making it not only the predecessor but the 'ruler' of its own objectivity.
-- Existentialism

If anyone's beliefs happen to coincide with the above, then feel free to call yourselves existentialists.

[Curious]

.
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?

If I might respond to the original post by sin_is_fun, I completely understand his dissatisfaction. While I shy away from quoting scripture where possible, I feel obliged in this instance to paraphrase Jesus to make a point. Jesus said that whoever says they know the way to heaven is blowing smoke out their arse. If somebody tells you that following a certain philosophy will lead to heaven, salvation, or whatever, then it is certain that it will not.
There is no such thing as a bad philosophical question, only bad answers. If the question is inadequate, then investigation will lead to a more valid question. That is the problem with many would-be philosophers-they believe that philosophical questions lead to philosophical answers. Philosophical questions just lead to better philosophical questions. Answers are only ever formulated by those who reach their own limitations and are believed only by inferior intellects.

[sin_is_fun]

If I might respond to the original post by sin_is_fun, I completely understand his dissatisfaction. While I shy away from quoting scripture where possible, I feel obliged in this instance to paraphrase Jesus to make a point. Jesus said that whoever says they know the way to heaven is blowing smoke out their arse. If somebody tells you that following a certain philosophy will lead to heaven, salvation, or whatever, then it is certain that it will not.

Then will all reach heaven?

There is no such thing as a bad philosophical question, only bad answers. If the question is inadequate, then investigation will lead to a more valid question. That is the problem with many would-be philosophers-they believe that philosophical questions lead to philosophical answers. Philosophical questions just lead to better philosophical questions. Answers are only ever formulated by those who reach their own limitations and are believed only by inferior intellects.

I think some questions have no answers.For example "who am I'. This questions has no answers

[Cephus]

Cephus, please don't be making personal attacks Like all of us harvey1 has his own worldview and has made his case here. His bold assertion of the fact that Atheism is an untenable philosophy is bound to stir the passions, but he thinks he has a right to make this claim because nobody has been able to convince him that there is a good enough reason for atheism. Why not give him some good reasons of your own?

No, he has his own worldview, to which he is certainly welcome, but to say he's made his case is utterly laughable. He's done nothing better than the guy who claims that peanut butter is better than jelly on his say-so and clearly, anyone who disagrees is wrong.

Harvey is so busy out tilting at windmills and boxing strawmen that obviously he's not convinced about anyone else's views, he's never bothered to actually LISTEN or EXAMINE them. He's out demanding that people need to like peanut butter when the rest of us are eating ham sandwiches.

And he's hardly alone around here.