What is the Most Important Philosophical Question

a reply to: Wang Tang

Are good and evil truly at odds with eachother if we are the ones to define them and such are not at odds with us?

We are always a complete being, aware of this fact or not, we are everything we ever were or will be. We only learn that to varying degrees.

So, why do we choose to define good and evil as opposing forces externally and being unavoidable natures within ourselves

?

If I can attempt an answer:

We are ever the witness of the world around us and sadly become only witnesses to our own selves.

a reply to: luthier

I still argue with anyone that the single most important philosphical question in society based reality is "how do I act". Like how do I make decisions and why.

This question in and of itself comes loaded with other questions as have all the others that have been asked so far. The question itself implies that their is a way we ought to act. So maybe we should first ask the question is there a way we ought to act?

Kant has a lot of work here in epistemology According to Kant, it is vital always to distinguish between the distinct realms of phenomena and noumena. Phenomena are the appearances, which constitute the our experience; noumena are the (presumed) things themselves, which constitute reality. A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience, as with mathematics (3 000 + 2 000 = 5 000), tautologies ("All bachelors are unmarried"), and deduction from pure reason (e.g., ontological proofs). A posteriori knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or empirical evidence, as with most aspects of science and personal knowledge.

From what I know of Kant's epistemology he also distinguishes between synthetic and analytic knowledge. He also felt that metaphysical knowledge needed to be synthetic a priori knowledge.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

There is a way to act based on your, (at the very min tacit support of society) innate gifts, expirience and knowledge of your social structure.

The greater the sense of duty without authority the better.

You have agreed to exist in this society by taking part in it if you have left "the cave"

In a society that values freedom of thought the most, deontology is addressed as a moral teaching. A person still has the choice how to participate in a functional structure but the actions you should take have been limited by the protection you gain from society.

One requires freedom of thought and a willful lack of superstious rules to have the ability to open up potential thought in a moderate advancement.

Quantum mechanics ceases to exist when you are preoccupied with finding water. Or ducking bullets...or hacking off limbs for a name.

PS kant did feel metaphysics were in fact useless to think you have solved or can argue a strong point.

He did not think morality and ethics were metaphysical principles. They had reasonable explanations.

Like the categorical imperative.

Ironically, or by occult design, the three major Western religions deal with probably the three most vital philosophical questions humankind faces, and each of their doctrines and history testifies to this:

Judaism: Family and nation and tribe

Christianity: Life and death

Islam: War and peace

Why is there existence at all? This is the most important philosophical question. All other philosophical questions relate to this one over-arching question. Even if we gain an answer to that of our own existence, it still does not answer the question for why there is existence at all?

Before we can answer any question we pose, we have to ask the ontological question of...what can we know as real unchangeable truth, truth that remains a truth for all eternity. Currently, truths that we call truths are only snapshots of a particular understanding of a particular circumstance at a particular moment in time. It doesn't mean that if we return and examine them in a thousand years time that they remain a truth. It seems to me that truths are products of the time of their understanding, and tend to get discarded by truths of a future time.

What is existence is the most puzzling and profound philosophical question one can ask, and it is the most important.

a reply to: elysiumfire


I believe what you talking about are called Principles.

Some would say that there are seven of them.

Mentalism, Correspondence, Vibration, Polarity, Rhythm, Cause and Effect, Gender.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

While individualistic questions may not be relevant to an objective truth, they may be more relevant in everyday life.

Luthier has eloquently described this concept:

originally posted by: luthier
Quantum mechanics ceases to exist when you are preoccupied with finding water.

When we are preoccupied with trying to survive, the pursuit of the truth may not seem so important anymore. We must remember, there are billions of people who are engaged in a daily struggle for survival, and if we come up with an objectively most important philosophical question, it must be equally relevant to humans in all life situations.

To drive my point home, take this question for example:

Are you happy?

Yes, your answer will probably not be based on any objective truth. But your answer to the question is still highly relevant to your everyday life.

I think we are inevitably delving into a discussion of what is the greatest good. By greatest good I mean the #1 most important thing humans should strive for. You seem to be in agreement with Plato that the greatest good is knowledge. Aristotle would say happiness is the greatest good. Buddha would say enlightenment. Epicurus would say pleasure.

As Willtell stated earlier, the most important question is meted with the most important answer. In order to determine what the most important answer is, I think we need to have an idea of what is the greatest good.

Or... perhaps we have stumbled upon the most important question? What is the greatest good?

a reply to: luthier

I do like this question. It is individualistic, answerable, and relevant for people in any life situation.

However, my one concern is the superficial nature of the question. It seems more geared towards pleasing others than pleasing one's self. Or perhaps pleasing others is pleasing to one's self. Perhaps we are superficial beings.

a reply to: Wang Tang

the most important question would be "is there any point to anything"

But I guess that comes with wisdom as you age. Ok I'm only kidding (maybe I'm not)

The answer to your riddle is "there are no easy answers"

To question is to be human.

I often spend too much time philosophizing; but I'm too "mature" to discuss many idea's in polite company these day's.

The world is too dumbed down.

Here's something to ponder;

en.wikipedia.org...

Why are there even kings & queens in the 21st Century?

a reply to: AMNicks

In order to become complete (philosophically speaking) you need not to ask the question.

That is Buddhistically speaking...not philosophically speaking. A religious meme

a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

And yet Jesus had no qualms about going around teaching while being sponsored by his wealthy Auntie Elizabeth, she must have been a rich woman.

But this is a philosophy thread...meh untrusty christians...alway's sneeking in their god beliefs at the drop of a hat.

a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

build empires simulating HEAVEN outside of the Kingdom

You're right...we get those idea's from the description of what heaven is like from the bible....jewel's and crowns.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Tithing is voluntary Socialism, Not Communism.

Well not really if it's a set formula at 10%, that is what tithing is.

a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

Don't worry about cows...

we are the livestock, soul recycling

www.trickedbythelight.com...

a reply to: Isurrender73

Wealthy people have too many things to worry about to be free from suffering.

That sound's like something you're taught in Communism 101. The poor suffer just as much. Wealth is a state of mind.

You can be super rich or super poor and be in suffering.
I have money, sometimes I suffer from the ailment's of age. I accept that. I suffered in the past from not having money.
Anyone that tell's you that you don't find happiness in money never really had money to play with. I usually keep my eye on them as first chance they'll get they'll happily deprive you of your money or ask for a handout.

Money cannot buy you happiness, it's a fine tightrope we walk, balancing the spiritual and material.

a reply to: PageLC14

I'm not anywhere near being a philosopher so I'm not educated, by any means, on the fundamental nature of the ANYTHING. But, it's definitely one that I find myself pondering on more than anything else.

But by you being on this thread, you are indeed a philosopher. Welcome. Any one who questions the nature of existence is a philosopher.

What you wrote I can agree on as my personal truth as well.

a reply to: PageLC14

I wasn't expecting those types of questions until a little later but her intelligence tends to surprise me a little more every day.

I suspect (believing in reincarnation) that the tough question's often come from our young ones. It's as if we somehow forget we are old soul's reincarnating, but the veils lift, and we remember and we ask grown up question's.

intelligence tends to surprise me

intelligence is perhap's the wrong word. She is "aware" being still close to incarnation (birth).

a reply to: Wang Tang

As a human, I feel that the most important philosophical question, is also the most practical question we can ask. That is, "Will my individual spirit still exist and be engaged in "living", one-thousand, one-million, etc.. years from now?"

We all agree that time on this Earth is short. An individual can argue passionately about the election, enjoy a spectacular vacation, or worry about things... but so did all the people who are buried in the cemeteries we drive past. Could that be THE END of our individual existence?

That's why I feel that Life-After-Death is the most important question. Unfortunately, there's no concrete answer. Just some scientific theories, and religious hopes/beliefs.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Great answers

Happiness in life comes from playing games of chance with a small group of friends.

Does Russian roulette count as one of these games? I bring that up as someone did mention suicide earlier in the thread.
Or what about throwing names into a hat and partnering off for casual sex with those friend's.
It appears that so much emphasis in this existence is placed on monogamy and breeding and "partnering for life" as some ideal in and of it's self.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

as that belief in and of itself would simply be determined by whatever unknown force you think controls us all.

and yet you label your "self" a servant of a mythical being?