As a holder of a degree in philosophy I completely agree, "When the emphasis is on the physical sciences, above all else, it seems to me that philosophy becomes so flat." I am of the opinion that philosophy needs a current champion of philosophy. Someone that can make philosophy more relatable to the average reader or thinker. When you ask the average person in the streets about their thoughts on philosophy and it's relevance to modern times, it is not uncommon to hear that philosophy is no longer useful or is outdated. When I was a student at university I wrote a paper on how philosophy has become obscured by academic philosophers only writing to an audience of other professional philosophers thus leaving out everyone else.

Sigh, from what I can gather, this post has strayed terribly from what I think it's original question or point was. Philosophy is the pursuit of knowledge and truth. Science (like theoretical physics) was born of philosophy. Whereas philosophy is a system of logical thought processes, science is grounded in physical experiments that are reproduceable and verifiable. Furthermore, philosophy is used in science to continue to push the limits by asking ethical, logical, theoretical questions. It should be noted that this simplistic answer comes no where near covering how theoretical physics and philosophy bleed over and support each other, but, it should easily show that there is an inextricable link between these two fields.

Isn’t it an irony that in a place of business or corporation the individual, with their skills, submits to the greater good of the company for its success. — Brett

While I believe that I understand what you are trying to say by using the word "submit", it may not be a good word choice. As you can see, submit has obtained the baggage of having a negative connotation. Perhaps something along the line of, "works towards, or contributes to" would move your idea forward.

You pose one of those eternal questions about individuals and their relationship to the powers that governs them (the state). Where does one start and the other end, and is there any overlap? How much of an individual's rights can be subsumed by the state, and the individual still be free to follow their individual inclinations? Great question, yet, hard to answer definitively! Why? Because we are all individuals and have different viewpoints of where the line lays between individuals and the state.

Chose to continue to live, because, you may not feel like living today, but tomorrow you may find reasons to live.

Read Joseph Campbell's - "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" it is his seminal work on myths, legends, and hero's. It is a very interesting and informative book.

I would chose the one claiming to be a madman. A genuine madman would not recognize himself as being "mad", yet he would believe himself to be perfectly sane, moral and worthy. How do I "know" this you ask, because I am perfectly sane and people frequently accuse me of being a "mad man", Bwwhahahaha!

Sorry, but I agree with jacksonprat22, and I too am finding it hard to determine exactly what you are asking. I will however highlight a couple of things, particularly Grasp and Intelligence; a definition of intelligence - "a mental faculty - the capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning,... "en.wikipedia.org and, "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills". The term "Grasp", means to figuratively to take hold of an idea, to understand the information being put forth, which is what would happen if you study a concept enough to understand it, with out actually experiencing or observing the concept., which is a good definition of "a priori".

You state, "The highest degree of philosophy has, in my mind, been classified as the practice of philosophy. It could be said that philosophers are lover's of, not wisdom, but rather intelligence." Huh? Literally, the word philosophy comes from the Greek words of Philo - (love) and Sophia - (wisdom). While you will often find that someone that is wise is usually intelligent, but one is not a prerequisite for the other. Sorry, maybe I am being thick headed today, it happens!

I have been in a one percent motorcycle club for over 20 years and I have seen and experienced women that seem to be attracted to alpha type males that foster the bad boy image that is being talked about. This is purely my take on the whys and wherefores to that behavior.

Many women are attracted to "bad boys" because it is so outside of their regular life style. Most do not stick around or stay within the biker scene because the newness and excitement wears off or they become disenchanted with losing themselves in a male dominated culture. Although there are plenty that were either raised within the culture, i.e. their dad, brother, or close relative was in a club and that is the life they know and feel comfortable in, or they decide that they like the feeling of belonging to an outsider society, or community. Many stay because they find a good, trustworthy partner that is actually more alpha than "bad boy". After all, people always want to belong to something that gives their life meaning and to fit in and be respected.

Currently reading:
"Hidden in Plain Sight: 6 Why Three Dimensions?", Andrew Thomas
"The Transhumanist Wager" , Zoltan Istvan
"The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory", Brian Greene
"Balancing on Blue - Thru-Hiking the Appalachian Trail", Keith Foskett

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me." God doesn't want anyone to worship anybody but him, but why? — Wheatley

I often use this quote from Exodus 20:3 when having debates with my Christian friends. I use it to point out the implication that the Christian god is a jealous god, and jealousy is a human behavioral trait. Thus, indicating that their perfect god is not so perfect. The statement also stands in opposition to the Christian god being the only god, and not necessarily being the best god. If the Christian god did exist, and he is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, he would never make such a request. He would have no need to do such. However, a god that was contrived by man would have the need to do so, in order, to protect and maintain his assumed power and influence over mankind. It is hard to imagine that the supposed all powerful biblical god, that created heaven and earth, would worry about his creations not believing in him. Of course many will fall back to the default position of free will, but that path should be taken up in a different thread. Thanks for presenting an interesting question!