Philosophy Now Forum

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 wrote: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 wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote: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 wrote:(btw nobody can think for anybody; only you can think for yourself).

HexHammer wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:(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 wrote: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

Ginkgo wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote: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.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

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