Battle against? You can say that, sure. Some like to distinguish between intrinsic nature and extrinsic nature, though I'm skeptical that we ever get to intrinsic natures. Perhaps we graze the surface of these things, or the structural properties of phenomena.

Yes, those questions of what if a good life and what should I do and all that is part of the tradition going back thousands of years. These questions don't have easy answers, or we wouldn't be asking them still.

It's also mental masturbation, which I don't object to, nor do I think you do either.

I can understand it being everything to some, meaningless verbal quibbles to others. But I don't know about the wise.

As far as I'm concerned, go on as long as you wish. I don't see any problems with it. Though I'm unclear at what you're getting at.

Philosophy is the systematic analysis - rationality (mainstay), examination of structure - of questions, answers to those questions and, on the whole, all and sundry claims. Philosophy - viewed as such a methodology - is not without criticism (irrationalism).

Battle against? — Manuel

'Struggle against' if that's more to your liking.

Perhaps we graze the surface of these things, or the structural properties of phenomena. — Manuel

Interesting question: are the structural properties of things intrinsic or extrinsic? To me 'intrinsic' implies 'changeless'.

It's also mental masturbation, which I don't object to, nor do I think you do either. — Manuel

Right, all forms of masturbation have their place, and are not to be scoffed at.

I can understand it being everything to some, meaningless verbal quibbles to others. But I don't know about the wise. — Manuel

Nothing fancy, I was just suggesting that something like a middle path is more balanced.

Though I'm unclear at what you're getting at. — Manuel

Just throwing up some random ideas in the vomitorium.

Just throwing up some random ideas in the vomitorium. — Janus

:vomit: ergo sum ...

:rofl: Absolutely sum-ptuous! :yum: