Every question already has an answer but really just seeks validation. — Sid

How could you know that every question already has an answer?

We wouldn't ask about something which we were sure unless we sought to define the strengths and weaknesses of said thing. — Sid

Not sure I understand. I understand the asking of a question like, "What are the strengths and weaknesses of faith?", more than I understand the asking of a question like, "What is faith?". I don't think that they're equivalent in meaning, and if they were, why not express it as the former, so as to avoid the kind of misunderstandings you'd get with the latter?

No. — Sid

I agree. That last question, especially, was more of a rhetorical question.

Your original version, from the little I saw of it through my notification, was more interesting. Shame you deleted it.

*shrug* I'm not trying to set an agenda. — Noble Dust

Oh. It's just that it looked to me like you were trying to turn the tables and make it about me.

What is a charade? :joke: — Purple Pond

A more recent US president now renowned about something to do with head underneath tables can be famously paraphrased as asking, “What is is?” This can be a very philosophical question, for what is is is still a matter of debate, and can get to the core of many a philosophical issue … but it wasn’t within the context in which he posed the question. His so asking in the context he asked was a good example of a charade. :yum:

Shame you deleted it. — Sapientia

Oh, I thought it was out of tune with the other comments. Not that being out of tune is unfamiliar territory.

What it amounted to was this:

It seems like many OPs are questions about the obvious, which a brief search would provide answers to. Or they are questions that have both a standard answer and an infinity of answers, like "What is God?" "What happens after death" -- like, how the hell would anyone know?

Some of the OP's come from educated specialists and are usually not very interesting -- to me. Some come from (just guessing) young guys just out (or maybe still in) high school who had a brain storm and need to drain the runoff.

Now, which OPs turn into interesting discussions and which fizzle at birth is hard to predict. I have a great track record of topics which roll off the table and collect dust in the corner, so it's always a mystery to me how people devise topics that go on for pages. Probably they don't devise the topics, they are just in tune with the zeitgeist of TPF.

I use the site for social and intellectual stimulation. I am not very interested in finding out what THE TRUTH is. My guess is that THE TRUTH is probably not all that interesting, and anyway, we probably have already tripped over it several times.

Is there something about philosophy which invites or attracts a sort of pretence? — Sapientia

Yeah actually I think that does sometimes happen. It's because the topics are so abstract and difficult that it's easy to either make mistakes without knowing it, or to bamboozle oneself or others.

Here's something I've learned about philosophy after about 35 or so years of amateur study: it's always deeper than you think, and you probably won't really understand the main philosophical problems until you've been at them for at least a decade. That's because to really understand the problems you have to have spent some time inhabiting all the various proposed solutions, and thinking they're true, and that just takes time, to cycle round the various positions like that.

It takes time to understand the problems of philosophy in the 101 sense, and then it takes time to get out of the habit of latching on to whatever seems right to you first time, and instead deeply checking out all the main answers, even the ones you don't like. Then you have a deeper understanding of the problems, and then your next round of going through the answers, you start to get a clearer picture of your own opinion, and precisely where it might differ from the known answers.

Eventually you chisel out your own position.

But it's easy to bloviate before then, before you've really understood the problems deeply enough, and come to rash conclusions; and it's tempting to give the impression to others that you're more certain than you actually are from your position.

You say that it's always deeper than you think, but I disagree. I don't think that it's right to rule out exceptions. What if, in some particular case, it turns out to be quite shallow, and you've just been looking at it wrong? What if you've been caught by the spell, and have yet to have it broken? What if, at some moment in time, which might occur even after years of study, it strikes you that the appearance of deepness has been somewhat of an illusion all along, and a distraction from the reality, which you may have known deep down all along?

Is that not at least possible?

How far down the rabbit hole are you?

It's called disillusionment. — Sapientia

The opposite has happened to me here.

The opposite has happened to me here. — T Clark

I offer you my condolences.

Anyway, just to clarify, I'm not railing against philosophy: just a certain side to it, or a certain approach to it. I'm not saying, "Don't question", just "Question wisely".

What're features of good approaches then?

What're features of good approaches then? — fdrake

I think it's good to start with what we know. So, instead of asking, "What is faith?", first consider that we already bloody know.

Can you give an example of what it would look like to start with what we already bloody know and then do good philosophy to it?

Can you give an example of what it would look like to start with what we already bloody know and then do good philosophy to it? — fdrake

I could use the earlier example of the topic of the strengths and weaknesses of faith, as opposed to asking what faith is. That's at least better philosophy, if not necessarily good philosophy.

Understood.

If you have such a superior grasp of the common-sense understanding of what reality is and you are self-satisfied with it, then why do you bother with philosophy, or philosophers, at all?

That's a very loaded "if". Superior doesn't equate to sufficient. I'm not completely satisfied. Also, philosophy and philosophers can be interesting, even when I disagree with aspects of philosophy and with philosophers.

So, you aver that you do have a superior grasp of the common-sense understanding of life, but that it is not sufficient, and your aim is to gain a complete grasp of it and become well-satisfied with it?

If so, and if philosophers ask stupid questions that erroneously abnegate the glorious common-sense understanding that you are trying to attain a complete grasp of, then perhaps you are wasting your precious time in their company? (BTW, do you think my last sentence was a statement or a question?)

it's like everyday is April Fools' Day, and it seems far removed from reality. — Sapientia

You never did strike me as one with a real interest in philosophical questions. Not you're not intelligent or articulate, your posts are generally both. But I think that the asking of deep questions actually gets on your nerves, doesn't it? Isn't' that what you're saying?

So, you aver that you do have a superior grasp of the common-sense understanding of life, but that it is not sufficient, and your aim is to gain a complete grasp of it and become well-satisfied with it? — Janus

No. You can see what I said, and that wasn't it. The word "aver" - interesting choice, by the way - is synonymous with "assert". If you had've used the word "suggest", then you'd still be wrong, but less offtrack. I averred that superior doesn't equate to sufficient, not that I have a superior grasp.

Stop asking me time-wasting loaded questions, please.

You never did strike me as one with a real interest in philosophical questions. Not you're not intelligent or articulate, your posts are generally both. But I think that the asking of deep questions actually gets on your nerves, doesn't it? Isn't' that what you're saying? — Wayfarer

And here's another one. It's almost as though that was coordinated.

Anyone else? I know, I'll join in myself.

Sapientia, you have such effrontery! You think you're so wise, don't you? How dare you be critical of a certain approach to philosophy?! You're basically just taking a big dump on the entirety of philosophy, and everything I hold dear in life, aren't you? I bite my thumb at you!

If you had've used the word "suggest", then you'd still be wrong, but less offtrack. I avered that superior doesn't equate to sufficuent, not that I have a superior grasp. — Sapientia

It is you who is wrong here. I wasn't wrong, because I was asking a question, not asserting anything
(although I might have been suggesting something :wink:)

Superior doesn't equate to sufficient. I'm not completely satisfied. — Sapientia

That said, taken together these two sentences do seem to strongly suggest that you do believe you have a superior understanding of the common-sense view of reality, but that you are not completely satisfied with it since, although it is superior, it is not sufficient.

Many of your posts, your generally dismissive tone, your choice of avatar and indeed the content of this very OP would seem to strongly support the inference that this seemingly strong suggestion is not in fact an illusion.

Face it, you’re mainly here to while away the time. It’s a social network spoilt by the inconvenience of people talking philoosphy.

That said, taken together these two sentences do seem to strongly suggest that you do believe you have a superior understanding of the common-sense view of reality, but that you are not completely satisfied with it since, although it is superior, it is not sufficient.

Many of your posts, your dismissive tone, your choice of avatar and indeed the content of this very OP would seem to strongly support the inference that this seemingly strong suggestion is not in fact an illusion. — Janus

Yes, and don't forget that I'm known for my seriousness. I have never been one for playfulness or comic irony.

philoosphy — Wayfarer

:snicker:

Face it, you’re mainly here to while away the time. It’s a social network spoilt by the inconvenience of people talking philoosphy. — Wayfarer

Face it, you only piped up in here to get personal and disrupt the discussion.

That's true.

Simulations maybe... :joke:

What if, in some particular case, it turns out to be quite shallow, and you've just been looking at it wrong? What if you've been caught by the spell, and have yet to have it broken? What if, at some moment in time, which might occur even after years of study, it strikes you that the appearance of deepness has been somewhat of an illusion all along, and a distraction from the reality, which you may have known deep down all along? — Sapientia

Lots of things are possible. The question is which is most likely, and best supported by the evidence.

One has to be on guard against various ways of going astray of course, but that's partly why we engage in dialogue, to make sure we aren't going crazy :)

Interested in agreement or disagreement, and why. — Sapientia

What could I possibly disagree with or agree with, you did not make a statement but asked a question. Oh, the question mark is missing.

You appear to have mistaken a question for an assertion, and you haven't attempted to answer it, or any of my questions for that matter. — Sapientia

No, I did not confuse a question for a statement, that seems to be unique to you. Your question contains the phrase "that which we already know" which itself is a statement.

Is there something about it which opens up for debate that which we already know — Sapientia

Don't change the subject. I asked that question because I'm interested in what others think. — Sapientia

I have not changed the subject. I too asked that question because I'm interested in what others think.

But to answer your original question and avoid further miss understanding, yes I think some people become pretentious. These people are usually the ones that post things like "Yes, I think you have that about right", "Oh you beat me to it, I was just going to post the same thing", " I could not have expressed that better myself" or sometimes just refuse to give a straight answer. I am sure you have noticed those people.

I'm not saying, "Don't question", just "Question wisely". — Sapientia

What would you consider a well thought out, wise question? Is there any that you would like to ask?

Oh what blankets on our bed
when we use a can of worms for thread.