Is philosophy pointless?

Is this just a hobby, or will answering the big questions make a difference? Are you here because you feel comfort in the fact that people care enough to even search in the first place? Does a fear of the unknown drive us to try to answer these questions?

Is this just a hobby, or will answering the big questions make a difference? Are you here because you feel comfort in the fact that people care enough to even search in the first place? Does a fear of the unknown drive us to try to answer these questions?

There is a lot of confusion about what Philosophy really is. I think Philosophy can divided in two parts. The first is trying to answer questions which are just means to answer other questions. The second is trying to answer those other questions once the those have been answered. Most of philosophy is trying to the find the answer to first-order questions, in order to answer the subsequent questions (hence why there is a lot of confusion in the notion of whether or not philosophy ever makes progress). For instance, just think about the debates over the synthetic a priori. Kant didn't write an extremely long book about whether or not the synthetic a priori is possible for its own sake, but rather, he did it to answer a subsequent question- whether or not metaphysics is possible. Another example would be the debates over naming in the philosophy of language. Can there be contingent identity statements? If not, then, if a=b, then necessarily a=b. But if that's true, there is an ontological distinction between mental states and brain states (see Saul Kripke). So, again, it seems that philosophy is always in the workshop. That is, always working on questions just to answer other questions.

Is this just a hobby, or will answering the big questions make a difference?

These days, just about anything you do will be pointless. You are the frog in the pot thinking of so many potential tomorrows. I answered all of my philosophy questions long ago, currently seeking a practical tie between theory and current situation.

Are you here because you feel comfort in the fact that people care enough to even search in the first place?

I might be more tempted to call it "last desperate hope" rather than "comfort".

Does a fear of the unknown drive us to try to answer these questions?

A fear/hope of the known drives most of my endeavors.

But don't confuse philosophy with much of what goes on in philosophy forums.

~99.9999% of all philosophy is a total waste of time, most philosophy books doesn't take account for advanced physics, psychology, neurology, etc, etc, but are mere unqualified guesswork, babble and raving, not to mention the classical philosophy works.

Sure over time there has indeed been fragments of lasting scribbles, but scarce and not well used in todays terms.

A good example of counter productive philosophy is when idiots debates if a tree makes a sound if no ones is there, that is totally disregarding basic physics.

Revealing these truths may have me banned from this forum.

~99.9999% of all philosophy is a total waste of time, most philosophy books doesn't take account for advanced physics, psychology, neurology, etc, etc, but are mere unqualified guesswork, babble and raving, not to mention the classical philosophy works.

Sure over time there has indeed been fragments of lasting scribbles, but scarce and not well used in todays terms.

A good example of counter productive philosophy is when idiots debates if a tree makes a sound if no ones is there, that is totally disregarding basic physics.

Revealing these truths may have me banned from this forum.

Or maybe it's the idiots who don't realize "the sound of a falling tree senario" is an analogy, who are the ones that see no point in philosophy. It's not meant to be taken literally, it's an epistemological example, how can you have accurate knowledge of an event if you were'nt there to witness it, it's the accountability argument. Just like the "chicken and egg" is an ontological analogy, theyre not literally arguing over chickens and eggs, evolution takes care of that problem.

Or maybe it's the idiots who don't realize "the sound of a falling tree senario" is an analogy, who are the ones that see no point in philosophy. It's not meant to be taken literally, it's an epistemological example, how can you have accurate knowledge of an event if you were'nt there to witness it, it's the accountability argument. Just like the "chicken and egg" is an ontological analogy, theyre not literally arguing over chickens and eggs, evolution takes care of that problem.

That's not the point, you don't promote a utterly bad example to try to make a rational point. Sure rational thinking people will make a correct solution, but people without rationallity will usually not.

This "tree" example by itself isn't the problem, it's when people keep making bad examples that it will become confusing and counterproductive.

Just look at dictionaries how they'r rewritten all the time, because people gets the meaning of words wrong, just like philosophers gets basic concepts wrong and begins their babble and raving.

~99.9999% of all philosophy is a total waste of time, most philosophy books doesn't take account for advanced physics, psychology, neurology, etc, etc, but are mere unqualified guesswork, babble and raving, not to mention the classical philosophy works.

Sure over time there has indeed been fragments of lasting scribbles, but scarce and not well used in todays terms.

A good example of counter productive philosophy is when idiots debates if a tree makes a sound if no ones is there, that is totally disregarding basic physics.

Revealing these truths may have me banned from this forum.

Blind men really shouldn't rant about the thoughts of colors.

~99.9999% of all philosophy is a total waste of time, most philosophy books doesn't take account for advanced physics, psychology, neurology, etc, etc, but are mere unqualified guesswork, babble and raving, not to mention the classical philosophy works.

Sure over time there has indeed been fragments of lasting scribbles, but scarce and not well used in todays terms.

A good example of counter productive philosophy is when idiots debates if a tree makes a sound if no ones is there, that is totally disregarding basic physics.

Revealing these truths may have me banned from this forum.

Blind men really shouldn't rant about the thoughts of colors.

Then the seeing should show something useful from the tailor.

..but there are nothing useful!

Try to keep clear of the name calling, wether blatent or implied.

-- Updated March 1st, 2012, 10:42 am to add the following --

And the literal debate for the tree example is the question of wether sound is sound when it is heard and just vibrations traveling through the air at any other point in time.

In all seriousness, I'v been to various philosophy fora since 2008, and never really seen any philospher make anything useful on their own, only by copying other's science works, they will show something useful.
By that I'm saying that most philosphy is totally useless, which undoubtly will anger the many regardless of truth, as they will react emotionally instead of rationally, by thinking in terms of logic and reason like their ancient philospher have made foundations of correct thinking.

~99.9999% of all philosophy is a total waste of time, most philosophy books doesn't take account for advanced physics, psychology, neurology, etc, etc, but are mere unqualified guesswork, babble and raving, not to mention the classical philosophy works.

Sure over time there has indeed been fragments of lasting scribbles, but scarce and not well used in todays terms.

A good example of counter productive philosophy is when idiots debates if a tree makes a sound if no ones is there, that is totally disregarding basic physics.

Revealing these truths may have me banned from this forum.

Wow. It is obvious that you don't read any philosophy. No one debates over whether or not a tree makes a sound if no one is there.

Wow. It is obvious that you don't read any philosophy. No one debates over whether or not a tree makes a sound if no one is there.

Apparently we live in 1 different worlds then.
And yes, I'v read Kant, Kirkegaard, Sokrates ..etc, etc, all mostly outdated.

Wow. It is obvious that you don't read any philosophy. No one debates over whether or not a tree makes a sound if no one is there.

Apparently we live in 1 different worlds then.
And yes, I'v read Kant, Kirkegaard, Sokrates ..etc, etc, all mostly outdated.

Please buy a book on modern analytic philosophy. You're 200 years behind. Your knowledge of philosophy is equivalent to someone thinking that physics ended with Galileo.

Please buy a book on modern analytic philosophy. You're 200 years behind. Your knowledge of philosophy is equivalent to someone thinking that physics ended with Galileo.

Any specific book/author?

Uh, just to be a bit clear, does this "analytic philosphy" of yours have the concept of empiricism? Yes?

Please buy a book on modern analytic philosophy. You're 200 years behind. Your knowledge of philosophy is equivalent to someone thinking that physics ended with Galileo.

Any specific book/author?

Get the metaphysics anthologies. There's one from Blackwell and one from Routledge. And yes, most analytic philosophers are empiricists (the earlier ones were straight up positivists). Check out Bertrand Russell (my favorite philosopher), Ludwig Wittgenstein, W. V Quine, Rudolf Carnap, A.J Ayer, Mortiz Schlick, etc.