Freud recognized two different types of processes, the preconscious, which contains thoughts that can easily become conscious, and the unconscious proper, which holds repressed material that cannot be directly accessed.

Quoting Freud is ironically more a disproof of your claim than anything else. He didn't recognize two different types, he guessed. Thankfully no one really buys that anymore.

What kind of answer to "what is reality?" are you looking for — 180 Proof

The two you posted.

Now how on Earth could anyone discover that, other than just guessing in a manner of which seems to offer no room for any argument to the contrary? — Outlander

It didn't say Freud discovered it. It said he recognized it. I also recognize it based on my own experience. I wouldn't have put it in my post otherwise.

Quoting Freud is ironically more a disproof of your claim than anything else. He didn't recognize two different types, he guessed. Thankfully no one really buys that anymore. — Darkneos

None of this is true

Quoting Freud is ironically more a disproof of your claim than anything else. He didn't recognize two different types, he guessed. Thankfully no one really buys that anymore. — Darkneos

It is, much of what Freud thought turned out to be wrong.

Philosophy leads to doctrines or principles. Principles are more important than practicality. It sets the standard for our actions.

When you break the principles, be it secular or religious, you get an estimation of how deviant your actions have become. You feel bad when you go so far. Even though you're not following the principles line by line, it's working as a compass. But when there is no principle, you'll have no direction. You'll have no restraint. You'll have nothing to shape your life. Be it personal moral codes or societal. Much like law and order.

A purpose to philosophy? Over thousands of years we have decimated forests and plantations to make paper and print books - please tell me there are purpose to this! Please tell me there are purpose to a book that could be read, its content be scrutinised, argued about and understood - perhaps even contribute to this thing we call knowledge. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that philosophy has purpose. And perhaps the question may lead to some interesting conversations.

Perhaps a better question would be if philosophy has utility. To which the obvious answer must be yes - if not, it would have been discarded. But then, what, exactly, is this utility and how could we find more of it?

I don't think everyone is a philosopher like he says, most people don't really seem to question the way things are in life and just go along with it with what they were taught. From my understanding our brains are sorta resistant to what philosophy requires of us. — Darkneos

To say that everyone is a philosopher sounds democratic, but in reality it’s an illusion. Most people live by inherited routines, without pausing to question them. And that’s not a moral flaw—it’s simply the inertia of daily life. To philosophize requires discomfort, and our minds often resist that.

That said, it doesn’t mean we are condemned never to philosophize. Every one of us has the potential and the opportunity to do so: the ability to stop, to ask, to look at the world with new eyes. But that potential usually lies dormant, because we prefer the comfort of what we’ve been taught over the uncertainty of genuine thought.

Nietzsche in Dawn says that philosophy imitates the natural sciences (ones that imitate real life experimentation and classification) but it's just a form of entertainment, basically.