Toughest Philosophical Questions

...are you suggesting that "theory´s" as theory's are not factual theory's ?
...hell what are you suggesting at all ?

Fair enough, brosky. Although I do not agree with your un-warranted threats, I will go along with attending to the issue 'at hand'.

There is only one 'tough' philosophical question, and it has only become 'tough' because it has been taken for granted and 99.99999% of the people on the planet refuse to acknowledge it.

The toughest 'philosophical' question is: Who am I? This is a question which is asked without seeking a explicitly provable answer. It is asked seeking within the most dark, cruel and unknown area of all existence, it is asking about who you really are. Now as you know this 'area' is often neglected, swept under the rug, and taken as something which is 'already known'. You go own through your life 'feeling' like you have an 'inkling' of who you are because should anyone talk to you, you have the 'ability' to carry on a (half) meaningful conversation.

In other words, you're not a retard, you don't just drool when confronted by others. You give acceptable 'speeches', this gives you security. But until you start to question just 'who' it is that is aware of 'all this'(yeah, even right now) who you are will be swept under the rug and you won't have a say in your life. In fact, all you'll be able to do is 'bitch'(pardon my french) to other people about the 'mess' you're in, by doing stuff like, oh I don't know, trying to get someone banned on a message board somewhere(don't get hung up on that).

In closing, my only goal in participating in the forum is to provoke curiosity within those who are curious. If you have any questions I would be glad to answer them, however if you find that after reading this you have the urge to pile up your 'reasons' for another argument against me(as all the rest of your posts have been so far) then I suggest you resist that temptation as I will not be responding.

Take the example of the big bang theory. It is often considered to be correct because the facts that support it are solid. But a theory cannot be fact.

JP, I am not really interested in your navelgazing. It is only fair to inform you, so you don't waste your efforts. Think of it as returning the favor.



Then your method contradicts your goal.

When i ask such questions which are crucial for me ,usually people do not care (i mean 100% of my close friends) . It is interesting for me that i found there are still people in the world who care such questions that i can find them in the forum. i enjoy discussing the questions here. I think such questions like "who am I" , needs do more concentration on my own and improve your intuition than contemplate about it.

Hell, 99.9999% of the people out there won't 'stop' to take you seriously, they just pull a response 'out of a hat' which they've deemed appropriate.

Don't act like you didn't already know there were 'others' out there who are interested in such questions. "Who am I" is the only question worth asking and not answering. So OF COURSE there are those 'out there' who are concerned with this question.

BTW: You cannot 'improve' who you already are, the moment you drop trying to be 'improved' you have reach fulled capacity.

I know WHO I am--that's a matter of social identity. As I see it the philosophical question is WHAT am I?

What am I? It's the totality of what I see as myself, and all others think of who I am.

Most people probably have a different impression of who I am - even from who I think I am.

...my point actually was that whether a theory is correct or wrong is an entire different matter from a theory being factually a theory, that is simply to say that a theory is a theory, A is A...which you said was not, seams clear now that what you meant was not what you wrote, problem solved...

Good points! I too think my IDENTITY is the sum of all the ways I and others identify myself. But when I referred to the question of "WHAT I am" I was referring to the "I", the presumed agent behing this person's actions, thoughts, and feelings.

You're too quick to conclude with 'knowing' who you are. The un-covering is a journey which lasts for as long as you say so, your attempted 'diversion' of the question is your distraction.

Give up looking for distractions and 'focus' exclusively on yourself.

BTW: Who you really are has nothing to do with 'social identity'. YOU define who you are, even if you've succumbed however much to the will of the 'world' it is still YOU who defines you. Also, you are not a 'what'(thing).

The sky is the limit.

What was quick? Nowhere in any statement does it conclude a static I.

C.I., do you understand JPL at all?
JLN

No; I think the subject matter is too spacial for him.

'Pretending to know what you're talking about when you really don't' - loves company! LOL

How would you feel if you humiliated me with that comment? Good?

JLN, You should know by now that when anyone challenges you with ad hominems, they've already lost the debate.

Good job. You made a problem yourself, which you then solved.

Now here's what I said. A theory cannot be fact.

You said this to JL??? I mean, to JLNoboby. Do you know anything about him.

...must admit I was surprised also...