Toughest Philosophical Questions

I think you're looking at this in an idealistic way, if it were to be a universal point of view I would say that there is a purpose, but it is not real. Just like our existence and other living things in the universe. For example: an ant... does it really know it's purpose? Because we can identify an ants purpose maybe as a part of our earth's system or something else, but does the ant really know it's own purpose even though it's achieving it already? Maybe their purposes are defined by others thoughts and views and if so, who could we define our own purpose?

Capitalism requires world markets to the point that it will, and has went to war for them... Engles said that the search for markets cannot keep pace with increased ability to produce... And; what is essential to some strength to any economy is a good domestic market which is all but destroyed by low wages and high unemployment... Employers count onthe government to be there to maintain labor peace which requires social safety nets, and a dole; but they are as a class unwilling to pay for these because taxes limit profits so the government must rely upon the same expedient as the population to survive, and that is credit; and we are all rotten with credit without hope of income with which to pay it... If you have to buy your foreign markets at the point of a gun, and instead of having markets are forced to be a market for the goods produced with exported capital, then your society reaches a point where it can no longer produce for its own needs nor provide a market for imports or domestic production... We have easy money now... The money loaned to the banks by the government which must in turned be borrowed from foreign governments or the banks will some day come due; and with the tax base limited to low wage earners, there is nothing there to be taxed because it all goes from hand to mouth...Pie in the sky when we die does not really work reality... Some where, some place, the books must balance, and if the only thing keeping us going is credit, then what will we do when the credit has sucked all the wealth from society and dries up???

Dear lord; If only you believed in me half as much as I have believed in you, we could be through with nothing gained, and no one lost...

Does your finger have a purpose but to scratch your butt or pick your nose??? An ant in not the equal of an individual being... The ant colony is the equal to a being, such as a human being, with only more legs and greater determination... In a very real sense, no person alone is a true individual either, because no person alone can breed, and so is sterile without the help of another of the opposite sex, and reproduction is an essential activity of life for there to be life... In a political sense people are individuals, but even in a biological sense we can see people divided into lesser beings all the time by action or nature; but since only one half of the division works and lives in any sense, people are thought of as un-divide-able as individual means...My point being that our metaphysical beliefs which are a hold over of an age of ignorance and prejudice impede us as much in our recognition of ant being as much as of our own being which is as a part of an organic whole...Individualism has the force it does in this society because it makes possible the destruction of whole communities through the destruction of individuals who can offer no creditable defense of self or society...As a philosophy, individualism is useful only to the rich, and a failure for all its victims...

Physics has the answer to that. In order to create change something must possess two things: Potential energy and the ability to convert it to kenetic energy. Leading to the creation to the universe. Man is simply a lever or gear in the chaos machine. Another thing to add to this. If man is just a gear imagine the other pieces of the machine. Aliens anyone??

You are putting forward a mechanistic model of the universe, and of mankind... It has been tried, and often rejected, and there may be some truth to it at some level; but I doubt it is quite so simple...

How does one measure the validity of a "philosophical" question or answer? Is the measure of validity truly "valid?" Darvin Landa.

Time will tell... Philsophy is about people, and people cannot evolve, so they adapt, and the way people adapt is through changing their forms, and every form is a form, also, of relationship... The point of philosophy, which should also be the point of government, and science, and in fact, all economies and all social forms: Is Good... And good is the survival and florishment of humanity... Wars, discontent, unhappiness, and anxiety are not individual problems... These are the signs and symptoms of failed forms... We could reduce them to failures to communicate, but even with the form of communication, some problems are intractable and will not admit of any solution but death... And it is because the death of one party or the other is such a simple solution, it is very often taken...And it does not solve the ultimate problems of people's unhappiness, so it leads to over breeding, excess in all behavior, injustices large and small which are in the end directed against other peoples and populations...

Time will tell if the philosophy of life given to us actually works... I trust that we want freedom without anarchy, and satiation without excess... I can see that international injustice is the extension of national injustice, and no different... I can see that the fear people hold for the future keeps them from meaningful change, and yet the world they keep does not make happiness possible, and so they look for happiness in material things, in entertainment sex, and in over breeding... People have more children than they can support or love usually where they feel their own live threatened and meaningless... A meaningful life is the best contraception... People with meaning do not ever have more children than they can love...

A lot of the questions posted here relate to the self (being, values and ethics, existence, consciousness etc). And I indeed think that the self is one of the key questions in philosophy. There was an in-depth debate on this subject at our last philosophy and music festival - HowTheLightGetsIn, and the video was recently made available on our website: http://bit.ly/yomNgX.
Perhaps we could engage specifically with this philosophical issue? What do you think?

I don't know... I think; but I do not indeed think... You know; the self has evolved... For example; it used to be that only rich people or very talented people could have selves, and everyone else had to be some body among nobodies to even be noticed... Now, everyone thinks they have to be an individual; and it does not matter that they are not in the least unique, or that they do not act as individuals... Tecnically; an individual is like every other individual... An individual brick is like every other brick, and an individual half brick is like every other half brick... You cannot divide a brick hand still have a brick, and to do so changes its character, and you cannot divide people either; but the individual and the concept of the individual is one used to divide communities, and people from each other... The individual as a concept is social poison...

You know, we are dieocious... The individual alone cannot reproduce itself, and apart, it- is sterile, and so, already dead... The true individual in an organic sense is a mating pair... We are a product of relationships, and properly we should take our identities from our relationships, just as a primitive might say: I am a Roman, or I am an Odawa... Socrates would not leave his community because he preferred death in Athens to life as a non-person anywhere else... To have his rights he could not deny their rights over his person and his future... He came from them... They gave him his life and to them he owed his life... People used to only have rights among their own, and even today, people find they must join with people like themselves in order to have defined rights...

The fact of the matter is that people push the notion of the self onto the less intelligent to injure them and rob from them while they out of great good sense join with others in forms purely with the purpose of using and abusing the stupid...No one can say where the community leaves off and the individual begins... Culture is knowledge, and we all recieve the bulk of our knowledge without a fraction of the effort necessary to find that knowledge to begin with... And we think we are individuals... The self is simply a moral form...True human beings are bonded at every edge...

I love it!!
TickTockMan, you are a genius I can really appreciate your words. :-)
Very well thought out.

who am i where am i why am i here
the three first question that start all other question
but than again, all question is same and all question is tough

What are persons? (Note: NOT "Minds", NOT "humans" qua "human animals". Persons, i.e. beings who are "morally accountable" for what they do, whether said 'accountability' is 'illusory' or otherwise. (Someday, we might make robots who have this property, and are such that were they to commit a crime, they would be put in jail.) How are persons Possible?)

What is the relationship between conceivability and possibility?

Possibility is possible while concievability may be possible.

What is action?

the point would be rather significant, if any one god can be proven to exist then that shud significantly effect how one lives, and if god could be disproven then various concepts like morality and ethics would have no meaning or purpose.

can you answer the ten most question that humans ask

can I prove that God is real

I can repeat the number one question 90% of all humans ask: Where is my next meal coming from???...

The next most often asked question is: Who do I have to kill in order to eat???

You cannot even prove your own reality, and for this reason God was invented... Infact, every relationship has two purposes... One is realization, to make certain we are real, that is, that we survive into the future; and the other purpose is recognition so that when we are recognized as real we are reminded of a reality no one can prove but only testify to... If I say you are real, you can believe what no one can prove... If I say God is real I have just testified to my own reality more than to God's reality because people must be real to believe even in a false idea...

you could the thing is that , in Ancient times , there were godS A god