Is there any philosophical question that you don't know the answer to?

[zxcvbnm]

There are no answers in philosophy, you can answer one only from your own point of view.

 

[kuukkeli]

I guess Fifty has abaddoned his thread.

Does that surprise you? This time though he can at least blame the bananas

 

[Swedishguy]

"Do these threads ever stop?"

 

[Birdjaguar]

Not if you contribute something of value.

 

[warpus]

I cannot judge your personal motivation for saying you don't know, so "humbleness" is just fine. I do not think that is typical when it comes to the big important questions about life, why we are here and what is true. Your experiences have left you in doubt; mine have not.

I am not in doubt; I just realize that we don't have the foresight to answer all of the big burning questions yet, such as the meaning of life, the nature of reality, etc.

I wouldn't be foolhardy to claim that I've figured it all out - especially if I couldn't even back up my assertions with something substantial, which you can't.

These are all questions to which there are "right" answers even if humans don't know or cannot agree on what those answers are;

Agreed.

we are not likely to find scientific answers or proof.

What makes you say that?

So where does that leave us? We can take your position of "I don't know." Or we can say "We'll never know."

That's a foolish position to take; I am a bit of an optimist so I believe that some of these things will eventually be worked out.

Or we can argue "rationally" for another 4,000 and still not get any answers. Or we can say "My experience has value and it tells me that XXX is true."

Coming up with an arbitrary answer that fits into your world-view for the sake of having an answer is silly.

You have far too much faith in your arbitrary world view, BirdJaguar. Yours is based on experience and you aren't willing to entertain the thought that you are fundamentally wrong - Mine is based on rational thought.. I welcome the shattering of my world view - but I do not just base such things on personal experience. To do so would be foolish.

BTW, why am I "likely wrong on many of these issues"?

Because you are unable to even defend them... nor are you able to even present them as falsifiable points, that we could discuss and argue for or against.

You base everything on your personal experience. Well, guess what, you are 1 in 6 billion. The chance that your personal experience has lead you to the truth regarding the most fundamental questions about reality is very very low..

If you disagree, state your points rationally and argue them, instead of relying on personal experience.

Edit: Birdjaguar, you also (for some reason) confuse "the truth" with "the proper way to live your life". The two do not have to be one and the same.. They usually are not..

Personal experience is paramount in determining the proper way to live your life.. but what the hell does that have to do with the nature of reality, for example? You assume that the two are one and the same, for some reason. There is overlap, but not much.

 

[Bill3000]

Yeah, plenty. And I do like philosophy because of my inherent curiosity on intellectual matters. But color me a bit skeptical when there really isn't a view of rigor in the public realm of the difference between philosophy and pseudophilosophy, much less philosophy's relevence. I mean, if the public realm does not actually listen to a moral philosopher on his expertise on moral decisions, what exactly is the point of it? This is different from science, considering the fact that you can have practical applications from science without the masses knowing much about it.

(And no, fifty, you can't give the example that it is "obvious" to anyone, cuz it isn't; appeals to authority pretty damn much is what philosophy is all about, and few people have time to check to see if that appeal is fine, thus post-modernism's popularity)

 

[luiz]

Is it possible to know the answer to philosophical questions in the same way that you know the capital of Brazil? It seems like "knowing the capital of Brazil" is a matching game, recalling a piece of information that was given to you in a certain pre-defined way (letters "b-r-a-s-i-l-i-a", name pronounced "brah-SEE-lee-uh", place on a map, picture, etc.) such that the whole thing is an identity, a closed circuit that is true because of the way it is defined. You had to learn, arbitrarily, that certain criteria meant that Brasilia was the capital of Brazil. But does this apply to "knowing" philosophical truths, and do truths even exist for philosophy in the same way? Or could you point to some examples of things that people have figured out in philosophy to the same degree of "knowing" what the capital of Brazil is? I wonder if either some different standard of "know" is going to have to be applied, or if there simply won't be any philosophical question that people "know" if you use a strict definition.

Addition: I think people can "know" the answer to a philosophical question but in a certain sense. Eventually some base principles will have to be defined and used. Something I've noticed is that practically anyone with a reasonable amount of intellect and reading comprehension can understand and engage a philosophical argument if you explain the terms and lingo to them and run it by them at most a few times. I find that people get lost a lot quicker once you start throwing advanced physics equations or biology at them. (And I'm not even a science person, so no self-promotion here.) Chemistry majors can often discuss their philosophy-major friend's term paper with them, but not vice versa. I think this is because a different standard of "knowing" is inherent to philosophy and philosophers have to be careful about addressing those whom they see as "civilians" because the philosophers ultimately don't know much more themselves. This is not to debase the discipline, but I do think that "knowing" something in philosophy is not as closed-off as the OP makes it seem. People don't need a PhD to contest a philosophical argument and at least explain why the point is moot or find a way to filibuster it. Or at least I welcome anyone to call me out on this and show me how I'm wrong.

There ya go, the answer for the OP question

 

[Mirc]

The kind of theism I believe in doesn't even attempt to explain EVERYTHING.

In fact, I'd say it's pretty arrogant to say you know the answer to every singly philosophical question. I certainly don't.

 

[GenMarshall]

I don't even know my own beliefs and views!

 

[bardolph]

"Do these threads ever stop?"

Not any time soon.

Next question?

 

[Zenon_pt]

He who seeks an answer, need's do know what is the question to the question you want to ask... Quite enigmatic...

 

[Masquerouge]

I think it would be fair to say there are no philosophical question that I don't have an opinion on

 

[gangleri2001]

I thought that philosophy was meant to ask, not to answer.

 

[Abaddon]

I thought everyone was able to at least express an opinion on a philosphy, knowing there is no right answer.

 

[Abaddon]

I guess Fifty has abaddoned his thread.

Typo or have I unintentionally become a meme?

 

[bardolph]

I thought that philosophy was meant to ask, not to answer.

So is answering these questions then called "Misosophy"?

 

[andvruss]

I meant to vote yes but accidentally voted no ^^. Philosophy is subjective.

 

[sourboy]

There will always be unanswered "philosophical" questions, so long as man is evolving.

 

[EquinoxOmega]

I think nobody can answer philosophical questions for sure. If somebody finds an answer the question isn't seen as philosophical any longer.

 

[Rhymes]

The kind of theism I believe in doesn't even attempt to explain EVERYTHING.

Well you and me follow the same school of thought I could almost change "everything" by "anything".