Is there a purpose to everything in this universe?

[HexHammer]

Even lab rats seems smarter than you, so let me repeat myself.

If you had just a tiny bit of understanding how the real world works, you would know industries spend billion in various research, so why wouldn't they have philosophers to do research and inventing, now that philosophers spend so much time on thinking?

..because most philosophers doesn't comprehend the simple concept of relevance, they only endulge in mental irrelevant mastubation that usually makes no sense.

See how many that gladly runs a fool's errand in solving "what came first, egg or chicken?", and they can't give an intelligent answer, because they'r GLARINGLY ignorent.

Ignorent people can only produce nonsense and babble, never anything useful.

Only people who have studied intensely in a field can be of use, like taking a degree in surgery can do surgery, a philosopher can't do surgery, because he's ignorent and can never guess his way to the "truth".

[Philosophy Explorer]

HexHammer said:

"If you had just a tiny bit of understanding how the real world works, you would know industries spend billion in various research, so why wouldn't they have philosophers to do research and inventing, now that philosophers spend so much time on thinking?"

I would say those lab rats were smarter than you. As I said, you're the one who brought up about philosophers working for companies so you may be the only one around here who has a high opinion of yourself because I certainly don't.

PhilX

[HexHammer]

HexHammer said:

"If you had just a tiny bit of understanding how the real world works, you would know industries spend billion in various research, so why wouldn't they have philosophers to do research and inventing, now that philosophers spend so much time on thinking?"

I would say those lab rats were smarter than you. As I said, you're the one who brought up about philosophers working for companies so you may be the only one around here who has a high opinion of yourself because I certainly don't.

PhilX

You don't comprehend the simple answer I gave, why I lable you as a retard, why you always ask very simply and silly questons that only fits the mentallity of a small child, I understand that you are a grown man, thus you are far behind in your mental development.

You have to have others to think for you, because you can't think for youself, that constitute retardness.

[Philosophy Explorer]

HexHammer said:

"If you had just a tiny bit of understanding how the real world works, you would know industries spend billion in various research, so why wouldn't they have philosophers to do research and inventing, now that philosophers spend so much time on thinking?"

I would say those lab rats were smarter than you. As I said, you're the one who brought up about philosophers working for companies so you may be the only one around here who has a high opinion of yourself because I certainly don't.

PhilX

You don't comprehend the simple answer I gave, why I lable you as a retard, why you always ask very simply and silly questons that only fits the mentallity of a small child, I understand that you are a grown man, thus you are far behind in your mental development.

You have to have others to think for you, because you can't think for youself, that constitute retardness.

Why would I listen to someone who can't spell (e.g. label, not lable; questions, not questons; mentality, not mentallity) plus your grammar mistakes. You need to grow up with your language errors (you badly need a spellchecker). And you talk about retardedness? How far did you get in school? (btw nobody can think for anybody; only you can think for yourself).

PhilX

[HexHammer]

When not so bright people doesn't have anything intelligent to say, they always go for the grammar.

Grammer is only asthetically, not something that should ruin the deeper meaning for any one reasonable intelligent, then again, you are not reasonable intelligent.

[HexHammer]

(btw nobody can think for anybody; only you can think for yourself).

Another tragic evidence of your lack of basic intellect.

By posing a question, others will try figure out an answer, thus do the thinking for you.
See, you are tragically stupid!

[Philosophy Explorer]

(btw nobody can think for anybody; only you can think for yourself).

Another tragic evidence of your lack of basic intellect.

By posing a question, others will try figure out an answer, thus do the thinking for you.
See, you are tragically stupid!

That is dumb. If you wish to have others do your thinking for you (if that's even possible), that's your business. I choose to do my own.

PhilX

[Ginkgo]

It would seem so. For example why can't a rock just be a rock without figuring out its origins or purpose? It seems that humans can't be satisfied without attaching a purpose. And if science can't supply an answer, then people look to God. And if religion can't supply an answer, then people turn to science. Why can't people, in general, just let things be and not let curiosity take over?

PhilX

Hi Phil Exp.

We can and we do examine rocks without assigning a purpose. In other words, science doesn't deal in purposes, it just deals in functions. To ask a question as to the purpose of the universe is a nonsense question when it comes to science. From a scientific point of view the universe, rocks and everything else have no purpose.

Why humans have a need to assign purpose is probably a question for psychology.

[Philosophy Explorer]

It would seem so. For example why can't a rock just be a rock without figuring out its origins or purpose? It seems that humans can't be satisfied without attaching a purpose. And if science can't supply an answer, then people look to God. And if religion can't supply an answer, then people turn to science. Why can't people, in general, just let things be and not let curiosity take over?

PhilX

Hi Phil Exp.

We can and we do examine rocks without assigning a purpose. In other words, science doesn't deal in purposes, it just deals in functions. To ask a question as to the purpose of the universe is a nonsense question when it comes to science. From a scientific point of view the universe, rocks or anything else has no purpose.

Why humans have a need to assign purpose is probably a question for psychology.

You see that HexHammer. That's a proper way to respond (and his spelling and grammar are in order).

PhilX

[Wyman]

It would seem so. For example why can't a rock just be a rock without figuring out its origins or purpose? It seems that humans can't be satisfied without attaching a purpose. And if science can't supply an answer, then people look to God. And if religion can't supply an answer, then people turn to science. Why can't people, in general, just let things be and not let curiosity take over?

PhilX

Hi Phil Exp.

We can and we do examine rocks without assigning a purpose. In other words, science doesn't deal in purposes, it just deals in functions. To ask a question as to the purpose of the universe is a nonsense question when it comes to science. From a scientific point of view the universe, rocks or anything else has no purpose.

Why humans have a need to assign purpose is probably a question for psychology.

You see that HexHammer. That's a proper way to respond (and his spelling and grammar are in order).

PhilX

PhilX, I see you've riled up Hexhammer, or, as I like to call him, the 'Minister of Abuse": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

[Philosophy Explorer]

Does anyone have a clue to this "Minister of Abuse?"

PhilX

[HexHammer]

as I like to call him, the 'Minister of Abuse": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

You are too kind!

[Advocate]

[quote="Philosophy Explorer" post_id=178637 time=1410548923 user_id=10260]
It would seem so. For example why can't a rock just be a rock without figuring out its origins or purpose? It seems that humans can't be satisfied without attaching a purpose. And if science can't supply an answer, then people look to God. And if religion can't supply an answer, then people turn to science. Why can't people, in general, just let things be and not let curiosity take over?

PhilX
[/quote]

Purpose is mind bound and is an emergent property of complexity in the inherent avoid/approach system all living things possess. It is contingent upon salience, perspective, and priority.

[Advocate]

[quote=HexHammer post_id=178653 time=1410559588 user_id=5841]
LOL, why would I contribute to rainbowchasing? ..I'm trying to wake you up, to do actual philosophy, not just cozy chat with nonsense and babble.

I'm trying to make you realize that all you can do now is building huts of straw and mud, when you should build cathedrals and empires.

This is excatly why the demand for philosophers in any serious buisness is zero!!!
[/quote]

My work as a Philosophy Coach to help people with existential problems isn't "serious business"?