Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
In classical philosophy, which was understood as the science of being, the science of the main things, the exciting question could only be the question of these main things. In modern philosophy, which acts more like the art of existence, the only question that can be so exciting is how philosophy is possible here and now, how I can be a philosopher here and now, how a philosophical text or philosophical language or philosophical speech is possible here and now.
In philosophy, it was in philosophy that there was and still is one question, and all the philosophers of the world have always tried to solve or reach this state. “The truth is hidden outside of writing In signs and words can not convey the law To the heart turn inside and back To comprehend yourself to become a Buddha.” Bodhidharma. Every philosopher strives to grasp the TRUTH. With respect.
“What is a 'philosophical question'?”
That is, not in relation to the past – how to answer what a “philosophical question” is from the point of view of Aristotle or, for example, Malebranche is more or less clear, but this just demonstrates the problem – how much it is now possible to talk about philosophy without going into the history of philosophy and at the same time without losing a minimum of objectivity. And the latter is important because it allows you to preserve the boundaries of the conversation and thereby – its meaningfulness, the ability to relate specific judgments to meaningful or not, meaningful or empty, banal or extraordinary.
The question “What is a “philosophical question”? ” is itself a good example of a philosophical question that, firstly, looks like a question to a question, and secondly, instead of asking something specific and useful, asks about why to ask something at all.
“Philosophical questions” are usually asked to interfere with a conversation on a topic in which you are completely incompetent. Then this is almost the only proper philosophical question.: What does it mean? A philosophical question is a question about the meaning of words, not things, and those that before this question seemed extremely clear, but after this question turn out to be inarticulate sounds.
This is when, for example, the idle Heideggerian question ” What does it mean to think?” They answer: What does it mean to mean?
Since Heidegger was probably the last great author who believed that of all the questions that belong to the department of philosophy, there is one that “excites the most”, then the question asked, alas, can only be answered in Heideggerian.
How to become a rock star and not become a bloated idiot by the age of fifty? How to become a writer and not become suicidal? How to become a saint and not become a saint? How to become Che Guevara and not become a portrait on expensive T-shirts? How can you become a philosopher and not become someone who endlessly repeats general passages from Heidegger?
This is what Heidegger roughly meant by the question of being, which is perhaps the most “exciting” of all philosophical questions (although in fact there are three exciting questions: how to connect the divided, how to separate the united, and how to hold these two questions together).
Can philosophy gain religious fullness, or is philosophy doomed to be the servant of theology and ideology? How can you honestly earn money on philosophy?
In my opinion, the most fundamental question is: what is the mission of humanity?
There are many other equally complex and important issues related to this issue: who are we? if there are living things, then what is life? can life have other forms? what is intelligence, language, etc.
Recently, very often I began to doubt that the universe ( God, Creator, Creator, etc.) is kind and wishes people well. You did not pay attention to the fact that you will only be a little happy about life – something bad happens that takes away your energy. I call it “milking” and often feel like a “cash cow”. Only instead of milk, energy ( happiness) is extracted from a person. Or you can figuratively imagine a person as a crypto farm that earns bitcoins for its owner and then cashes them out for himself. – In general, what a person is required to think and do all his life, conditionally, is not for a person, but for some kind of “milkmaid”or ” miner”.
How can we generalize to the level of ontology the correct idea of physicist Eugene Wigner that the universe is the result of multiplication of a very large number of symmetry groups? How to combine two diverging directions of philosophy in opposite directions: positivist-structuralist style and project of fundamental ontology, as well as existentialism? How can the members of the philosophical community be forced into intellectual and spiritual subjectivity and expel the scribes and Pharisees from it?
These are all facets of the same question.
I am concerned with the questions “why such a world? Why this particular world? Why such people? Why has so much trouble befallen the human race?
These questions have plagued me for a long time ..
I understand everything, but they load me with their full-time answers that don't satisfy me
For me, the main philosophical question is: when will stupidity die?!
Or…
Can fundamentally human stupidity be eradicated?!
Why does the “law of fools” always apply, when regardless of a person's status, education, or even intelligence, the number of fools statistically remains always the same?!
I am interested in the question: “Are people capable of being honest?”
And although I know the answer, and it is disappointing, but still, from a philosophical point of view, can humanity change to such an extent that people are honest with each other? What should happen for this to happen?
The global world, understood philosophically, is a world of different, but universal, that is, generally significant semantic worlds( = meanings of being). This is a world of worlds with their own meta-physicists and transcendences, but without the instance of a common meta-world. Mundus intermundialis. Questions: how is the truth of such a world of worlds possible? What is a global peace person?
manya doesn't care about anything, but .. the “answer to the most philosophical question” has long been known – “everything passes and it will pass” (c) Solomon.
as in the cases with the answer “42”, I would like to know the question itself .. but alas))))
The only philosophical – and only philosophical-question is: “What Should I do?”The rest is its variations on natural, social and political themes that humanity has been dealing with for quite a long time. Even Heidegger asked only “What is being?” – predecessor and approach to the question ” What should I do?”
All my life I've been burbling and never thought about it, but recently my friends have started asking, and I myself have been tormented by the question: does the inner voice of burr people sound like burrs?
THE SEXUAL QUESTION, which in its modern form consists of two parts:
In society, the most important destabilizing factor is “body rent” (female refusal-consent to sex, forcing men to pursue profit and destroy nature).
There is a problem of heterosexual non-dominant men who are “not allowed to have access to Capital and Body” (this is the group of society whose interests are not represented by anyone and no one protects them).
-Is happiness a worthwhile goal, given the scale of the universe and the insignificance of man in it? And if not, what is even worth the effort?
-Why (without esotericism, karma, divine laws and the boomerang effect) should the choice of a mature person be kindness and mercy, and not otherwise? If not, why does the majority believe it?
-Is it always better to know the truth?
-Does the world exist outside the mind of the person looking at it, and are not the scenery (npcs / robots programmed to manifest, not generate emotions/delirium of agonizing consciousness in the void) people around?
And not quite philosophical: Why do people think that white is the opposite of black?
Heidegger was most concerned with the question of what is more logical, what would not be being. But there is being. And this is strange and surprising. Non-existence will always be a problem.
A philosophical question is always a question about the basis of judgments or actions. The foundations are ontological (about the foundations of existence), epistemological (about the foundations of knowledge, criteria of truth) and axiological (about value, normative foundations).
It is necessary to strongly disrespect the achievements of philosophy and science for many centuries, or to maintain an ignorant innocence in their attitude in order to declare the complete unsolved problems of being, non-being, truth, the meaning of life, the mission of humanity, etc.
But we should not go to the other extreme, exaggerating the importance of philosophy and hoping that some philosophical discovery will suddenly transform the world. Philosophy develops and changes along with other spheres of the spirit: science, art, literature, morality, social, political and legal ideas.
In the current situation of global escalation of conflicts, wars and violence, widespread reverse transit in many countries from democracy to authoritarianism, as well as global polarization between the richest, most advanced societies and poor societies, deprived of something, offended, sliding to aggression, axiological issues come to the fore.
The problems of normative grounds arise with particular exactingness and acuteness when values, moral, legal, humanistic, and religious principles conflict.
What kind of violence, restriction of rights and freedoms is permissible to prevent violence (especially in the form of terror)?
If opening borders to hapless refugees threatens to harm local residents, is there a balance and how to find it?
Can revolutions, revolutionary violence, and the overthrow of governments in general be justified? Or are there limits to the brutality of repressive regimes, when the violent overthrow of power is already justified?
What are the criteria for the legitimacy of post-revolutionary regimes?
What principles should underlie assistance to backward countries if past experience of such assistance (financial, food, medical, etc.) has led to negative consequences: overpopulation, canning backwardness, crime, violence, wars?
One might think that such questions are not philosophical, but relate to politics, ideology, and the social sciences. The problem is that they are handled by completely different people and institutions who “don't bother” with philosophy. The results are visible and often deplorable.
Philosophy was locked up in an “ivory tower” (more precisely, in isolated university departments and special journals). Or rather, the philosophers themselves are locked in there, always ready to speculate with a deep look about the “high”: being and non-being, transcendences and semantic worlds, about “how to get the question” and about the mission of humanity.
No, I don't mind, philosophy, like fundamental science, does not have to be always relevant and “useful to society”. But philosophy also has no right to withdraw into itself, to be disconnected from the dramatic events, processes and profound shifts taking place in the world.
What is the soul?
Namely, what is the soul's will, how does it develop, and what influences its development? How to distinguish the soul's will from soulless madness? This is what I care about most in the present tense.
Once there was such a question to Yeshua Ganotzri from the Procurator of Judea.
The answer was simple:
When we appeal to abstraction, we must not forget that we have first and foremost concrete feelings and states.
Now I'm at work, but I didn't get enough sleep, and the main philosophical question for me is to sleep on the sly, or not to sleep?
To put it very briefly, then:
By the way, in the porn parody of Hamlet, it was like this:
The hint is clear, yes:)?