The Pointless Pursuit of Arguing Philosophy

[Dontaskme]

[Eodnhoj7]

Then why present an argument through an analogy?

[Dontaskme]

Then why present an argument through an analogy?

WHY ? .... because farts just happen. And we like smelling our own farts.

[Eodnhoj7]

Then why present an argument through an analogy?

WHY ? .... because farts just happen. And we like smelling our own farts.

If farts just happen then there is no problem with them.

[Dontaskme]

If farts just happen then there is no problem with them.

The implied problem is never a problem, and so arguing philosophical ideas, whether they be an opposing of, or an agreeing of ideas matters not, therefore would be pointless.

Points happen to happen pointlessly.

[Eodnhoj7]

If farts just happen then there is no problem with them.

The implied problem is never a problem, and so arguing philosophical ideas, whether they be an opposing of, or an agreeing of ideas matters not, therefore would be pointless.

Points happen to happen pointlessly.

Points occur repeatedly thus necessitating that an underlying order to being is presupposed.

To imply the problem is with philosophy, under your stance, is to say no problem exists with philosophy at all given the implication does not count as a problem.

[Dontaskme]

If farts just happen then there is no problem with them.

The implied problem is never a problem, and so arguing philosophical ideas, whether they be an opposing of, or an agreeing of ideas matters not, therefore would be pointless.

Points happen to happen pointlessly.

Points occur repeatedly thus necessitating that an underlying order to being is presupposed.

To imply the problem is with philosophy, under your stance, is to say no problem exists with philosophy at all given the implication does not count as a problem.

Pointless.

[Eodnhoj7]

The implied problem is never a problem, and so arguing philosophical ideas, whether they be an opposing of, or an agreeing of ideas matters not, therefore would be pointless.

Points happen to happen pointlessly.

Points occur repeatedly thus necessitating that an underlying order to being is presupposed.

To imply the problem is with philosophy, under your stance, is to say no problem exists with philosophy at all given the implication does not count as a problem.

Pointless.

It is pointless, from your stance, to make that claim as well.

[Atla]

You are creating many topics like this now, are you going through a crysis DAM?

[Lacewing]

I think there is value, or else many of us wouldn't be here. The value surely varies for people.

Some want to argue over being right -- and/or to establish that their (learned/chosen) path/view is the best. Their identity may very well be dependent on it.

Some may be seeking "ultimate truth", as if it is a single static thing amidst all. They may need to feel validated and purposeful in some ways.

I think there could be many apparent "truths" which are based on the angle one is viewing from or dependent on. For me, the value of philosophical discussion is often in questioning what we think we know. It is also about noticing patterns and characteristics that reveal what we're capable of and the reasons why we believe/do what we do. This process, for me, is about gaining more understanding... expanding on what I previously fathomed and accepted... and (of course) having fun and being entertained.

[Dubious]

Where philosophy forums are concerned, that sums up all the hot air into one four letter word.

[Dontaskme]

Points occur repeatedly thus necessitating that an underlying order to being is presupposed.

To imply the problem is with philosophy, under your stance, is to say no problem exists with philosophy at all given the implication does not count as a problem.

Pointless.

It is pointless, from your stance, to make that claim as well.

Yee!

[Dontaskme]

Where philosophy forums are concerned, that sums up all the hot air into one four letter word.

Yee!

[Dontaskme]

You are creating many topics like this now, are you going through a crysis DAM?

Nah!

I'm just on an eternal quest ..quest I on to understand what the REAL meaning of the word LOVE means.

This forum is only one tiny part of that quest, and is why I have posted so much to date. I live in pretty much a neutral state and my topics are mostly spontaneous. Thoughts just appear to me - I do not make them come. So most if not all of my topics have been a manifestion of my personal thoughts.

I'll not stop this quest for truth until I have died...because that's when everything goes blank, but I do not know if everything goes blank, I'll just have to wait and see when it happens, but for now, I'm just writing my story and sharing it on the forum.

[Dontaskme]

I think there is value, or else many of us wouldn't be here. The value surely varies for people.

Value for me is born out of the negative. What I mean there is when something is not negative, it's a positive which would have a value.
If everything was already a positive, we wouldn't have the need for value.

Some want to argue over being right -- and/or to establish that their (learned/chosen) path/view is the best. Their identity may very well be dependent on it.

That's right, and while people are so adamant that they are right, then it would seem they would be only interested in winning any ensuing argument which would be pointless for they would not have to argue their point if it was already known to be right. Arguing what already feels right with someone is a trivial pursuit, one either knows the answer they seek or they do not.

Some may be seeking "ultimate truth", as if it is a single static thing amidst all. They may need to feel validated and purposeful in some ways.

Yes, that is true, and is why arguing is pointless. We can share ideas, and we can reject them or take them on as valuable and that's all. Arguing is pointless...imo

I think there could be many apparent "truths" which are based on the angle one is viewing from or dependent on.

Just as there are many paths to the same destination?

For me, the value of philosophical discussion is often in questioning what we think we know.

For me, we can only know what we know and feels right personally from our direct experience. Would there be any doubt in you as to question what you already know feels right and true? ..when we question we are looking for validation of our own doubts which is pointless because seeking truth outside yourself would only be heard as something you already know, unless of course you hear something you didn't know but now do, and so even the new knowing would have to be validated or rejected by you ONLY.

It is also about noticing patterns and characteristics that reveal what we're capable of and the reasons why we believe/do what we do. This process, for me, is about gaining more understanding... expanding on what I previously fathomed and accepted... and (of course) having fun and being entertained.

Yes, and did you know that you do not exist without your reflection. Your reflection is the external world that you know to be out-there separate from you.

And yes, we are only interacting with our selves. For fun and entertainment...and the expansion of knowledge.
Knowledge is all we play with, it's commonly known as the play of maya. In Advaita Vedanta school of Hindu philosophy, Maya is an illusion which makes the world appear as duality.