Philosophy: an intellectual attempt to reconcile absurdity.
Philosophy: a form of psychological masturbation that comes of an urge, feels good, and typically has little practical implication.
An emotional conviction justified by a theory that necessitates a philosophical question.
Accepting that even this observation is emotionally driven, questioning the motifs behind a presented philosophical question and disregarding the theories one glimpses at the most wicked of insights!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"...has little practical implication"
ReplyDeleteMax, what about religion, or philosophical religion? do you think, some people benefit from practicing religion? do'nt you think they feel more protected, more confident, more sustainalbe?
They do indeed, and thus they illustrate my point: it is not whether their answers are correct; it is not even important whether they ask the right questions; it is them having the questions, the emotional conflicts that requires resolution is what I am most interested in. Understanding why one asks a question will either make the question redundant or it will crystallize the question so much that the answer will be obvious. For example, if a TV set is not working, an engineer will try to find out why, and may ask the right question and get the right answers. A bookworm may not even notice or bother with it at all. Hence the same issue, different questions and answers are not even relevant anymore. Why they ask or did not ask those questions defines them. It is not whether G-d exists or not, but why is it so important to so many people on so many levels - that is what defines them. Hence religion is a necessity that fulfils an emotional need, and so is philosophy. Makes people feel better, that is its purpose. “An emotional conviction justified by a theory that necessitates a philosophical question.”
ReplyDeleteI need to read it again... to get your point
ReplyDelete