Where is the philosophy???

[Age]

To you, what is a 'philosophical question', exactly?

Answer: A question whose answer has universal application.

Here's a specific question. Is there a better pronoun than "whose" in the context of the answer?

I do not know what 'pronouns' mean. But, could what you wrote here be better written,

A question, in which the answer of has universal application?

If yes, or even if no, then would you like to share some 'philosophical questions' here.

That way 'we' could have a Truly 'philosophical discussion', from both the context and definition that you have and use for the 'philosophical' word here, and from, the context and definition that I have and use for the 'philosophical' word here. And, find out where 'doing so' actually leads 'us' to, exactly.

I know that it would not be where you human beings are 'stuck in and at', in the days when this is being written, even after millennia of so-called previous 'philosophical discussions'.

Also, please absolutely anyone else free to provide some examples of any 'philosophical questions' that you might be curious and/or interested in finding an answer, clarity, or a solution to.

Just to recap and refresh now, a 'philosophical question', from "walker's" perspective is one where the answer to it has 'universal application', and a 'philosophical question', to me, is just one where the answer or solution for it is just found through a 'logically reasoned' discussion, which helps tremendously when done peacefully. I will also suggest now that by just being Truly OPEN and Truly Honest will help tremendously also, and that what will Truly speed up the process to finding and uncovering the shared upon agreed and accepted universal answer/solution is that 'we' all, in the discussion, accepted agreed upon definitions for the words to be used in 'the discussion'.

[Atla]

Now that IS a lie.
Because in fact you knoe nothing what ever.

That's the lie those miserable fucks keep telling themselves who think their online behaviour doesn't in any way reflect their real life persona. And you even had to go all out and do it on at least 3 forums, maybe more.

LOL
Well one thing is for sure you can't count

You have some particular difficulty with the number 3 evidently.

[Sculptor]

That's the lie those miserable fucks keep telling themselves who think their online behaviour doesn't in any way reflect their real life persona. And you even had to go all out and do it on at least 3 forums, maybe more.

LOL
Well one thing is for sure you can't count

You have some particular difficulty with the number 3 evidently.

LOL
No, that would be you.
This is where we came in.

[FlashDangerpants]

I flavour my cake with anguish, not lemons, and I butter my crumpet with the tears of a thousand orphans who all got socks for Christmas. But I will take my tea with a little milk and no sugar than you.

You are welcome to this tea, as you like it, with a little milk and no sugar. Here it is.
Also, I feel your words. I always did. I so wish I could bake a cake to make everything right, but I fear that I don't know the recipe

My sister, despite having many years of life ahead of her, has for some reason taken up knitting. It turns out that there's a huge online community for that, far in excess of this one. Apparently it is entirely toxic and that's largely down to the fact that they seem to discuss American politics too much. I don't know what sort of online community one might expect to be nicer than a knitting one....

I love how you said this here. I'm with you. I cannot imagine a nicer online community than a knitting one either, but... politics will certainly poison it. My mother sometimes joins in a group called 'Knit and natter." She calls it, alternatively known as 'knit and gossip'. But it means she gets out sometimes, and I think she is wise enough to listen to the nice stuff and ignore the toxic stuff.

whereas complete mentalists are not terribly invested in wools and yarns to the best of my knowlege.

This made me chuckle.

you won't ever find the forum you are hoping for where everyone is allowed to contribute but everyone respects each other.#

I seem to want to try anyway, and, despite being realistic about the very small chances of this happening, it's a nice thought I can dream about.

My mum joined one of those knitting and nattering groups a while back too. I'm starting to think she doesn't enjoy the company of old ladies much though, because she ragequit the knitting circle over some sort of argument.

Good luck with the tea, cake and world peace thing. Perhaps it works a bit like primal scream therapy, and once you've let them all shout for a while they will calm down.

[friendofyours]

My mum joined one of those knitting and nattering groups a while back too. I'm starting to think she doesn't enjoy the company of old ladies much though, because she ragequit the knitting circle over some sort of argument.

Good luck with the tea, cake and world peace thing. Perhaps it works a bit like primal scream therapy, and once you've let them all shout for a while they will calm down.

I’m sure your mum had her reasons for quitting the knitting group. Sometimes it is just better to walk away.

Regarding the primal scream therapy, you never know, although I’m beginning to think that the only thing some people really want on here is all the shouting, insults and craziness. Then that is only what all the conversation becomes about, and it doesn’t interest me that way. It’s impossible to even begin a decent discussion on philosophy, or anything, that way, to my mind. It’s a shame because there are probably some decent people here somewhere and the potential for decent, interesting conversation. Anyway, it’s been a learning experience, and I’m not the kind of person to let it get me down.

All the best to you, your mum and sister. May they knit to their hearts' content. I could never get the hang of it myself. Knit one, purl one was lost on me. How amazing to be able to knit something to wear though.

[FlashDangerpants]

It’s impossible to even begin a decent discussion on philosophy

Did you actually attempt any real discussion about philosophy?

[Walker]

But, as can be seen, what I was alluding to has not changed, and has not been negated, at all.

This all points to your incorrect use of the word, "But". As we all know, the incorrect useage of words leads to a muddy transmission, which increases static.

"But," is a conjunction that precedes a refutation. As you don't know what a pronoun is, I figured this clarification was also in order. (Let's rock)

A more appropriate way to transmit your allusioning, appropriate in the sense of transmitting clarity that shows fidelity to your intent, would have been with either the word, "Also," or with the phrase, "in addition to."

“He’s poor but honest, sad but true, boo hoo hoo hoo hoo.”

[Age]

But, as can be seen, what I was alluding to has not changed, and has not been negated, at all.

This all points to your incorrect use of the word, "But". As we all know, the incorrect useage of words leads to a muddy transmission, which increases static.

Like when you used words incorrectly also, right?

"But," is a conjunction that precedes a refutation. As you don't know what a pronoun is, I figured this clarification was also in order. (Let's rock)

A more appropriate way to transmit your allusioning, appropriate in the sense of transmitting clarity that shows fidelity to your intent, would have been with either the word, "Also," or with the phrase, "in addition to."

“He’s poor but honest, sad but true, boo hoo hoo hoo hoo.”

[Walker]

Like when you used words incorrectly also, right?

Everyone also makes mistakes, but not everyone justifies their mistakes with the non-sequiturial phrase: everyone also makes mistakes.

Also, in these Woke Days in the history of the world at the time that this is written, ignorance of prounouns and conjunctions does not excuse their misuse in the unblindfolded eyes of the Law ... which is why Philosophy Inspectors don't usually misuse them in their reports, even if others do.

So, why are so many folks saying "less", when they should be saying "fewer"? What justifies this ignorance of proper grammatical useage ... the fact that folks who speak for their supper are also committing the mistake?

[Walker]

Regarding the primal scream therapy ...

It's resulted in some good music.

[Age]

Like when you used words incorrectly also, right?

Everyone also makes mistakes, but not everyone justifies their mistakes with the non-sequiturial phrase: everyone also makes mistakes.

Also, in these Woke Days in the history of the world at the time that this is written, ignorance of prounouns and conjunctions does not excuse their misuse in the unblindfolded eyes of the Law ... which is why Philosophy Inspectors don't usually misuse them in their reports, even if others do.

So, why are so many folks saying "less", when they should be saying "fewer"? What justifies this ignorance of proper grammatical useage ... the fact that folks who speak for their supper are also committing the mistake?

So, the role of so-called "philosophy inspectors' 'now', in the se so-called 'woke days' when this being written, is to look for and write, in their reports, the supposed and alleged misuse of words.

The only issue that this self-claimed so-called 'philosophy inspector", so far anyway, is that I allegedly and supposedly misused the 'bur' word here only. Although this one has yet to show and prove that I have.

For a self-proclaimed "philosophy inspector" here not being able to recognize that the words 'can be' can be referring to something 'in the future', seems someone with the job of inspecting 'philosophy', itself,.would already be aware of and thus know. Well to some of 'us' anyway.

[friendofyours]

It’s impossible to even begin a decent discussion on philosophy

Did you actually attempt any real discussion about philosophy?

Okay, I'm going out on a limb here and possibly opening myself up to merciless ridicule, but I will be brave and forge head regardless.

Here is my philosophical thought for people to ponder:

Is there a possibility— or would it be impossible— that every human (since I’m not sure exactly when, but I would guess around the emergence of genus Homo, which have similar brain size) has had the exact same thoughts, given the opportunity to do so? What I mean by this is that, for example, if someone was born in a place that did not have access to modern knowledge, then they may not be able to have certain thoughts, since they do not have access to that knowledge. However, if they did have access to that knowledge, would they have the exact same thoughts as all those who also have access to that knowledge?

Also, to be clear, I do not mean that they would necessarily accept their thoughts as being true or accurate. They may well accept or reject their thoughts, depending on their circumstances and backgrounds, but that is not to say that they didn’t have the exact same thoughts as every other human being.

A basic example would be that every human, with approximately the same brain size as present humans, would have had the thought that the earth could be round. However, for whatever reasons, some humans chose to believe that it was flat.

This thought occurs to me every time I post a philosophical comment because I think to myself, “Why bother to post this thought since the same thought must have been thought so many times before?”

What are your thoughts?

[FlashDangerpants]

It’s impossible to even begin a decent discussion on philosophy

Did you actually attempt any real discussion about philosophy?

Okay, I'm going out on a limb here and possibly opening myself up to merciless ridicule, but I will be brave and forge head regardless.

Here is my philosophical thought for people to ponder:

Is there a possibility— or would it be impossible— that every human (since I’m not sure exactly when, but I would guess around the emergence of genus Homo, which have similar brain size) has had the exact same thoughts, given the opportunity to do so? What I mean by this is that, for example, if someone was born in a place that did not have access to modern knowledge, then they may not be able to have certain thoughts, since they do not have access to that knowledge. However, if they did have access to that knowledge, would they have the exact same thoughts as all those who also have access to that knowledge?

Also, to be clear, I do not mean that they would necessarily accept their thoughts as being true or accurate. They may well accept or reject their thoughts, depending on their circumstances and backgrounds, but that is not to say that they didn’t have the exact same thoughts as every other human being.

A basic example would be that every human, with approximately the same brain size as present humans, would have had the thought that the earth could be round. However, for whatever reasons, some humans chose to believe that it was flat.

This thought occurs to me every time I post a philosophical comment because I think to myself, “Why bother to post this thought since the same thought must have been thought so many times before?”

What are your thoughts?

My first thought is that there is no reason you shouldn't post that question in one of the livelier sub forums such General, or Phil of mind.

Some other thoughts are that I have seen some similar sounding things raised among philosophers and historians about certain ideas whose time just arrives, and which we associate with the first person to write them down. An example being Darwin who was by no means the first person to think up evolution, but I am told he did happen to be one of the two people who thought about it at exactly the right time for it to make sense in conjunction with all the other comparatively new ideas people were having in that era.

If that approach to your question puts a breeze up your skirt as it were, then a fine example of the craft is in progress, as Willy B (an actual expert in subject of philosophy of science) and Immanuel Can (a grunting halfwit with delusions of grandeur) are currently debating whether Francis Bacon single-handfedly invented the scientific method, so presumably the stuff in that last paragraph is due a mention there relatively soon.

In broader terms though, whoever invented picking up a burning stick and using it to set fire to some new thing to make a hut warm and a steak tasty must be one of the cleverest bastards ever, so I find it unlikely that any modern knowledge would be beyond them should we manage to locate their DNA in some old bone and send a clone of them to a modern school. Whoever invented knitting in 40,000 BC was quite a clever bastard too.

So on the one hand I should suggest there is no reason to let anyone put you off saying your thing. It's impossible to be the best philosopher here because at least 7 of these window lickers are the single greatest mind ever to live. Likewise, you cannot really compete with those same 7 for the actual worst. So you will just have to occupy some middle ground with the sane people, it will be fine, you'll just have to decide for yourself which bullshit to tune out*.



*LPT never look in the Gender sub, it's nothing but incels.

[friendofyours]

Did you actually attempt any real discussion about philosophy?

Okay, I'm going out on a limb here and possibly opening myself up to merciless ridicule, but I will be brave and forge head regardless.

Here is my philosophical thought for people to ponder:

Is there a possibility— or would it be impossible— that every human (since I’m not sure exactly when, but I would guess around the emergence of genus Homo, which have similar brain size) has had the exact same thoughts, given the opportunity to do so? What I mean by this is that, for example, if someone was born in a place that did not have access to modern knowledge, then they may not be able to have certain thoughts, since they do not have access to that knowledge. However, if they did have access to that knowledge, would they have the exact same thoughts as all those who also have access to that knowledge?

Also, to be clear, I do not mean that they would necessarily accept their thoughts as being true or accurate. They may well accept or reject their thoughts, depending on their circumstances and backgrounds, but that is not to say that they didn’t have the exact same thoughts as every other human being.

A basic example would be that every human, with approximately the same brain size as present humans, would have had the thought that the earth could be round. However, for whatever reasons, some humans chose to believe that it was flat.

This thought occurs to me every time I post a philosophical comment because I think to myself, “Why bother to post this thought since the same thought must have been thought so many times before?”

What are your thoughts?

My first thought is that there is no reason you shouldn't post that question in one of the livelier sub forums such General, or Phil of mind.

Some other thoughts are that I have seen some similar sounding things raised among philosophers and historians about certain ideas whose time just arrives, and which we associate with the first person to write them down. An example being Darwin who was by no means the first person to think up evolution, but I am told he did happen to be one of the two people who thought about it at exactly the right time for it to make sense in conjunction with all the other comparatively new ideas people were having in that era.

If that approach to your question puts a breeze up your skirt as it were, then a fine example of the craft is in progress, as Willy B (an actual expert in subject of philosophy of science) and Immanuel Can (a grunting halfwit with delusions of grandeur) are currently debating whether Francis Bacon single-handfedly invented the scientific method, so presumably the stuff in that last paragraph is due a mention there relatively soon.

In broader terms though, whoever invented picking up a burning stick and using it to set fire to some new thing to make a hut warm and a steak tasty must be one of the cleverest bastards ever, so I find it unlikely that any modern knowledge would be beyond them should we manage to locate their DNA in some old bone and send a clone of them to a modern school. Whoever invented knitting in 40,000 BC was quite a clever bastard too.

So on the one hand I should suggest there is no reason to let anyone put you off saying your thing. It's impossible to be the best philosopher here because at least 7 of these window lickers are the single greatest mind ever to live. Likewise, you cannot really compete with those same 7 for the actual worst. So you will just have to occupy some middle ground with the sane people, it will be fine, you'll just have to decide for yourself which bullshit to tune out*.



*LPT never look in the Gender sub, it's nothing but incels.

Thank you so much. You have given me some good advice. I appreciate it.

[Age]

It’s impossible to even begin a decent discussion on philosophy

Did you actually attempt any real discussion about philosophy?

Okay, I'm going out on a limb here and possibly opening myself up to merciless ridicule, but I will be brave and forge head regardless.

Here is my philosophical thought for people to ponder:

Is there a possibility— or would it be impossible— that every human (since I’m not sure exactly when, but I would guess around the emergence of genus Homo, which have similar brain size) has had the exact same thoughts, given the opportunity to do so? What I mean by this is that, for example, if someone was born in a place that did not have access to modern knowledge, then they may not be able to have certain thoughts, since they do not have access to that knowledge. However, if they did have access to that knowledge, would they have the exact same thoughts as all those who also have access to that knowledge?

If you are asking something like if one was able to go backwards, or forwards, to any time when human beings are existing, 'take', for lack of a better word, a new born baby, and then bring it to absolutely any other time in human beings' history, then would that baby grow up with relatively the same thoughts and thinking as every one around else around, and, also learn how to live with and use the 'technology/human created tools' of that time, then yes I would definitely say so.

But, if you were not more or less asking this, then can you elaborate on what it is, exactly, that you are asking here?

Also, to be clear, I do not mean that they would necessarily accept their thoughts as being true or accurate. They may well accept or reject their thoughts, depending on their circumstances and backgrounds, but that is not to say that they didn’t have the exact same thoughts as every other human being.

A basic example would be that every human, with approximately the same brain size as present humans, would have had the thought that the earth could be round. However, for whatever reasons, some humans chose to believe that it was flat.

This thought occurs to me every time I post a philosophical comment because I think to myself, “Why bother to post this thought since the same thought must have been thought so many times before?”

What are your thoughts?

I would not be too concerned, nor worried, at all about deciding to post something or not on some assumption that may well not even be true anyway.

No, Truly 'right' or sane thinking person would judge, let alone ridicule, another human being for just expressing the thoughts and thinking within a human body, nor for just asking absolutely any question asked for clarity at all.