I tell all this to explain that I didn't pace that night because I was reaching out for happiness. I didn't have any choice. The question had me in its hands. I was driven to try to understand. — Mongrel

Perhaps you misunderstood yourself. As far as I can see one is driven by emotion - happiness and sorrow being prime motivators.

Isn't this just another angle on the ''paradox'' of philosophy? While we seek knowledge because it is, to say the least, ''interesting'', the realization we attain after philosophy is not a brightly colored rainbow but a dark and gloomy place.

I agree that thinking ''too much'' which I'm translating as excessive physical exertion is harmful to bodily health. However, one doesn't need to think ''too much'' to get depressed. Even a leisurely contemplation of the human condition is enough to darken our mood. Which brings us to my main point - is it better (rationally) to remain in ignorant bliss or should we philosophize?

What is it about existence that it needs to be borne (born) out in the first place? — schopenhauer1

From a religious point of view, life is a "gift". It's supposed to be lived out in service of the divine - not just in some abstract manner but through loving service to our fellow man.

My own perspective on the matter is based on the infinite potential of what we call the future. Think of life as a relay race. Granted that as of now we don't have a good answer to the question you pose but our job is to pass on the baton to future generations - give them a chance to find the answer. It seems rather arrogant, malicious and foolish(?) to devalue life like that.

Indeed. The universe is not obliged to make us happy.

Would you question what I mean if I say "eat to much" or "drink too much?" People who eat to much tend to get obese, which has health consequences. People who think to much tend to focus on abstractions rather than experience of the physical and social world, which has psychological consequences. — T Clark

I think there's a distinction to be made between eating/drinking too much and thinking too much. In the former ''too much'' has a meaning - there's danger in excess. However, in the latter ''too much'' lacks this meaning. The danger (if any) lies in the inevitable realization of contemplating our world (it's s sad). The activity of thinking is NOT harmful in and of itself. So, there's no such thing as thinking ''too much''

I don't think we have any difficulty answering Mew's question, we just have difficulty agreeing. — T Clark

There's no correct answer to Mew's queries. In other words it's just a matter of opinion and speculation. Isn't that why there's ''difficulty agreeing''?

And then you brought free will into it. — T Clark

Isn't that what the OP had in mind? Where else does choice have relevance?

Go through all the posts on the website. I would not call the general tone "happy." People who think too much tend to be a melancholy and self-involved bunch — T Clark

What do you mean by ''think too much''? Did Socrates think too much?

You're just playing with words.

To get right to the point what did Socrates mean when he said ''I know that I know nothing''? In my humble opinion his greatest ''knowledge'' was realization of his own ignorance. My question is what made him happy? His ignorance or his ''knowledge'' of his ignorance? Or was he a sad man?

You're taking the literal definition of philosophy to be what it is about — Chany

Perhaps I am but surely you do not believe that a person would engage in an activity that didn't in some sense give the agent a degree of happiness. The irony of course is that philosophers haven't yet found any good reason to be jumping for joy. Quite to the contrary there are many many reasons to be sad - suffering, disease, death, etc. This I think is the curse of any philosopher - to find the journey so exciting and enjoyable and the destination so disappointing. Given that is so I'm still an optimist. I think there's hope for us - we must continue to envision a bright future based on sound moral grounds and have faith in science. In the future (I don't know when) our world may have a place for the ''happy philosopher''.

Is having complete knowledge important? — JupiterJess

Well, to the extent I know, we are in the dark or is it that I'm not fully abreast of mankind's ''progress''? Whatever the case may be the question is moot precisely because we don't know whether all this knowledge is good for us (or not). For example take knowledge of nuclear energy - it is now possible to end ALL of civilization in say 30 minutes?? Perhaps we need the ever elusive *wisdom* that philosophers so energetically speak. But that's getting ahead of ourselves - the first question is ''are humans even capable of finding such wisdom?"

Or could humanity survive by existing within the dark without having to know the behind the scenes extras? — JupiterJess

Well, what of the rest of the living world? They seem to be doing fine without the kind of knowledge humans are in possession of. Why should we be any different?

What do you think is dying? — OareCine

This question, if you consider history, is a pervasive (irrespective of culture or geography) preoccupation of the human psyche. Many have probed this question and some are still, and the answers range from complete destruction, annihilation to everlasting happiness in a place called paradise. These ''answers'' have a basis ranging from cold, impersonal reason to unbridled wishful thinking. To cut the story short we simply don't know. This is both good and bad. Good because we may, each one of us, initiate our own inquiry into the matter - the infinite possibilities we can explore can fruitfully engage our minds. Bad because such an important question that has relevance in the way we live our lives remains, sadly, unanswered.

Hi! What counts as a choice? Are our preferences chosen by us? If they are, based on what do we choose our preferences? If they are not, are the things we choose -based on our preferences- chosen? — mew

To me it seems obvious that people have "difficulty'' answering your question - I'm no exception.

What I'd like to say is that there's a certain impossibility that bears upon the question - it is impossible to discover the extent of the influence both external and internal factors have on what is the act of choosing. The problem of free will has no easy solution. We may speculate though. I'm open to that but then it's just my word against someone elses.

Caring about trends is still a sign of pessimism and mediocrity — Agustino

No it isn't. It's giving due weightage to what many define as ''progress'' - to reinstate (so to speak) the element of time to its rightful place in our reality and this is exactly what pessimists fail to do (to their peril).

That depends on whether you're willing to make the strict claim that beliefs are all material. But, then if we suppose that for a moment, how do you explain the efficacy of some beliefs? In other words, how or why are they so effective? Makes homeopathy relevant at the dismay of the doctors — Question

These are questions which I hope people with the resources to investigate are asking. Speaking for myself I think there's a ray of truth in those subscribing to dualism of some kind. My gut instinct is that the universe has yet to reveal all of its secrets.

Yes, they are equally stupid. However, even the pessimistic philosophy is often framed in terms of the individual, not in terms of the direction of mankind. — Agustino

If this is true why preach pessimism, as the OP is quite obviously doing?

I don't care about trends. I don't live in trends. I live in a specific and concrete situation. And so does everyone else. Nobody lives in trends — Agustino

You do ''live in a specific and concrete situation'' but you contribute to the measurement of trends e.g. life expectancy of the country you live in. It's not that ''trends'' are so abstract as to lose all meaning in the real world. These ''trends'' you seem to be demonizing are derived off of you too.

You seem to disregard the general trend and point to specifics that contradict my view on the matter.

However, note that pessimistic philosophy speaks in generals i.e. they commit, according to you, the same "error" you accuse me of. If it's a matter of individual taste pessimism has no basis.

Climate change is a fact but facts are seldom important in politics.

So, the placebo effect is just superstition gone wild? — Question

To be frank, the placebo effect is still explainable in terms of chemistry. It doesn't do the job of creating that sharp distinction between mind and body desired by some philosophers (dualists?).

Life is a pain in the ass...
But to deny it, people are wont to pass
On they go, children in toe
'Til the pain gets enlarged en masse — schopenhauer1

The pessimistic philosophy is a static one. Life, on the other hand, is dynamic - it moves (so to speak). The present is drastically different from the past - we live longer, less disease, etc. The present is better than the past. I think this trend will continue and the future will be even better. So, as a philosophy, pessimism is backward and unproductive.

In psychiatry depression is considered a chemical perturbation and is, obviously,treated as such. How much philosophers will subscribe to this interpretation depends on the degree of difference they see between mind and body. The body affecting the mind is scientific but the mind influencing the body is, as yet, psuedoscience.

Philosophy is about making sense of the world, not about seeking happiness. — Noblosh

But philosophy is defined as love of wisdom and love is an emotion which, as far as I know, brings happiness. I think no person would engage in philosophy without it being a happy occasion.

It's different for different people. — T Clark

So, you're saying it's a matter of opinion - of a subjective character. Then why all the fanfare about philosophy? Why take the uphill road towards wisdom and knowledge when you could simply plop yourself at the bottom, in joyful ignorance?

What do you take to be the core of Jesus' teachings? Please site a verse or two to support your view — Bitter Crank

Well, since he was executed at the ''ripe old age'' of 33 I don't think he got to the point where he could impart his core teachings.

That said I think the fourth word from the cross (''eloi, eloi lama sabachthani'') says it all. At the bitter end he was ALONE - God didn't save him from his enemies. I find it ironic and sad that Jesus died alone, abandoned by God who he loved and believed in while so many after him died in relative peace by believing in him.

Coming at this from a biological perspective, we're the apex predator on the planet. To add, we're also the apex pollutor of the environment - from the humble plastic bag to deadly radioactive waste - making us an unprecedented threat to the global ecology. So, yes, we do have a value but I'm sorry to point out it's not what you think. $9.1 million dollars!! What rubbish!

Neil deGrasse Tyson — 'The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.'

It might seem odd that religion is bothered by whether we believe or not. However, that's not the case. Religion in general deals with the unknown - god, soul, death, etc. So, it is not surprising that there's so much debate on the issue. We're stymied by lack of critical evidence and that opens the door to endless speculation. Sometimes I feel like we should just wait - we'll die eventually and ''hopefully'' solve this ancient riddle.

1. Is philosophy as a science having some basic principles or some undeniable truth about the things that it examines? — kris22

The basic principle, touted with much fanfare by philosophers, is to be *rational* - the bottomline being an ever-skeptical attitude.

2. Is there a discussion among other people in the methodology of philosophy?

Well, there is only ONE methodology in philosophy and that is to, first and foremost, apply *reason* universally. Here I think philosophy bungles up because I feel there's a lot more going on in our universe than text-book logic.

3. Are there strict rules in philosophy such as in mathematics, or can anyone create his own philosophy and worldview?

Feel free to create your own private universe to the extent that it conforms to the rules of logic. Here again philosophy stumbles because this constraint virtually puts many interesting ideas (mysticism, revelation, etc) beyond the scope of philosophy.

For what it's worth I'd point out that when it comes to emotions and life in general, the Buddhist middle path notion seems apt.

One must strike a balance between extremes - according to the Buddha it's the happiest place to be.

Philosophy is a twisted mess so far as emotion is concerned. It hasn't been able to define what happiness is (yet). Also it considers most emotions (anger, sorrow, pity, hate, etc) as impediments rather than conducive factors in their quest (whatever that is).

Imagination is a powerful tool. It, by nature, is designed to tackle what we may call the impossible.

Your average person struggles with advanced concepts in math, science and philosophy. So, isn't it obvious that there exists things that are incomprehensible?

For my knowledge, would you know what makes viruses a 'borderline case' in contrast to non-borderline cases? — Samuel Lacrampe

As far as I know viruses are made up of DNA and a few proteins and lack the other cellular apparatus to be independent living things. So their MO is to hijack the cellular apparatus of other living cells.

I believe ''life'', is sufficiently vague to scuttle any attempt to define it. We, some animals and plants are obviously alive but viruses and some other life forms are borderline cases. I guess this is expected of a gradual process such as evolution.

But our basic purpose is not knowledge, but happiness. — Ashwin Poonawala

Some may disagree. I think everyone suffers from pangs of ignorance - we have an inclination for knowledge. Ignorance is suffering. Isn't that the very base of all what we call progress.

Of course, since the universe is not obligated to make us happy, some knowledge is painful.

And science is destroying myths at an accelerating pace. — Ashwin Poonawala

Indeed science is doing a great job - destroying myths - but take note of the nature of what you call myths. They're trivial, almost childish, compared to the real BIG questions such as ''how did the universe come into existence?'', ''who framed the laws of nature?'' So far, the answers to these questions have eluded science.

God, being only a tool for this purpose, is slowly taking a back seat. — Ashwin Poonawala

As I've said above God is still in the game.

As funny as it sounds, this may be actually true.

Of course I'm talking about the very beginning of the universe itself - the right sort of natural laws, the right kind of stuff, the right location, the right time, the right whathaveyou. It's just too much of a coincidence to say it's just chance.

You've mistakenly(?) laid an unfair(?) emphasis on physical appearance. I'm not saying we shouldn't. I think it's quite a normal to go by appearances and the cosmetic industry is there to back me up.

However, if you were to examine other aspects of what makes a person e.g. morality, atheletic skill, talents such as music, and so on, you'll surely discover that everyone has gifts to rejoice about and flaws to lament over. So, to getting down to the essentials - nobody is perfect!

Difficult to answer your question. You're not talking in minutes but in terms of billions of years. I think the distance of time has obscured important clues to discovering the answer.

Every attempt to answer this question is going to be naked speculation.

So would you agree that as soon as we understand that there is a very high order around us that is very far from human capacity to create we start believing in God or we start believing in God, or we learn to believe in God in another way, like outside factors which i have mentioned in my previous message and justify it this way. — Override

Well, one way to go for theism is to latch onto what appears as design in our universe. There may be other routes that lead to god but I find none as convincing.

Socrates said ''the only thing I know is that I know nothing''. They killed him but that's beside the point.

What i meant by questioning "is belief of God coded in our DNA?" is trying to find out if this belief is some kind of an instinct that we inherit from past. — Override

If you look at what's happening now (with humans) is we're slowly discarding instinctual behavior and replacing it with reasoned thoughts. I think that's how human progress is defined. It's my opinion that god is not grounded in instinct, as you suggest, because if it was then we should see matching behavior in animals who presumably live at an instinctual level. God is a reasoned proposition e.g. explains the order that is evident in the universe.