Point to where I said you should do anything, this is an outrage.
Idiot. Who said I am trying to resolve them? I said they are unresolvable and you say I am trying to resolve them? Why are you trying to live if you going to die? I am not nice to you because you are a snivelling disingenuous bastard who wasted my time many times before by ignoring my replies when I wrote out thoughtful and long responses and other stuff I cant be bothered to list.
others: what’s the problem if no solution is desired?
Who said it? I did. Do you have to say it? I don’t think so. If you’re doing philosophy, which you’re supposedly doing, then you’re trying to solve problems. That’s the purpose of philosophy. If you’re not trying to resolve problems, then you’re not doing philosophy. So which one is the case? You decide.
To live as long as possible.
According to you, we met once at KTS and I ignored your lengthy reply. I don’t remember that moment but you do and you’re still not letting go of it. That one moment has defined your perception of me for all eternity. Isn’t that a bit silly?
So you’re saying you don’t give a damn about me and people around you? You don’t care about our well being? As far as you’re concerned, we can go “fuck ourselves”? Is that correct? Is that related to the culture of no compassion that I mentioned?
How can you not care about the environment you live in? How does that help you achieve your goals?
Or are you simply unaware of, and perhaps even lying about, your true motives?
I don’t know. The fact of that matter is that, even if you’re not a hypocrite in this particular case, you are in many other. Why do you attack other people ( such as Satyr ) if not in order to influence those reading your posts ( including Satyr himself ) ? What’s the point of writing things on a forum if not to influence others?
Philosophy is about solving problems. If you’re not solving problems, what exactly are you doing? Whatever it is, it can’t be philosophy. I am not judging. Do what you will, I’m just saying it’s a different thing than philosophy.
Problem: You read too much into what I said.
Solution: Since I was apparently not clear, it was a rhetorical question meant to communicate the position you have been communicating regarding the point behind questions: extract embedded answers.
The dullard thinks philosophy is about solving problems. Comical.
Show me one philosophical problem Aristotle solved. You are still a bit better than the SAITRE KOOK who claims philosophy is science and science is philosophy but my patience with online arm-chair intellectual weirdos is running razor thin and unless you produce something semi-coherent soon, you will likely never hear from me again.
If it is not about solving problems, what is it about then?
Well, since I am not particularly familiar with the history of philosophy, I can do no such thing. I’d have to make extra effort and I’m not particularly interested in doing that at the moment. Nonetheless, I am sure that Aristotle at least tried to solve a number of problems. But, as I already asked, if you’re not trying to solve problems, what is it that you’re actually doing as a philosopher?
I wouldn’t mind that.
Pick any philosopher.
I care.
And regarding resolution:
One cannot even call it unresolvable, because that would be a sort of resolution.
Philosophy isn’t about “solving problems” though it CAN be… Aristotle codified logic as an example, which certainly helps people because we’re not perfect sense making machines and it helps to know what the rules are for making sense so as to get better at it. What’s more “science” was formerly known as “natural philosophy” and what it produced was knowledge aka “science” which then became the name for an established empirical, falsifiable methodology employed by natural philosophers and deemed it’s own “discipline” as the employed methodology had become standardized and separate from the methodology of philosophy in general which remained receptive to “arm chair musings” so long as it made sense, the natural sciences had more rigorous, empirical data driven requirements.
Philosophy literally means “a love of wisdom” and wisdom could well take the form of knowing what problems cannot be solved so as to not waste time trying… or what problems may be good for us to have and thus best left unsolved.
Or in other words “wisdom” is knowing how to live a life that leaves you satisfied with the result… which may include solving problems or it may be how to live or cope with problems that are beyond your ability to solve.
These are problems to be solved, aren’t they? One is the problem of what problems can be solved. The other is the problem of what problems should be tolerated for a certain period of time ( without being solved. ) Note that the problems we should tolerate aren’t really “good for us”. That’s a misleading statement. Rather, it is good for us to tolerate them for a period of time ( even if that means for all time. )
Figuring out how to live or cope with problems is, in itself, an attempt to solve problems.
On the other hand, in most cases, when people say that a problem is unresolvable, they are exaggerating. In reality, what they mean to say is that they correctly or incorrectly perceive the problem to be too difficult, requiring too much time to solve, for them to justify spending any amount of time on it in the present. That doesn’t mean the problem is unresolvable and it also does not mean that other people shouldn’t attempt to solve it.
There are problems that are easy to solve, and that are already solved, without people being aware of it ( either because the solutions are hidden or because people are confused and don’t see the solutions even though they are right in front of their faces. ) There are also problems that can be solved but that require a lot of time and patience, multiple people working on the project and perhaps even inter-generational work, but that people mistakenly perceive as unresolvable.
I’'d be wary of “It can’t be solved” statements because there is a very good probability we’re dealing with real or fainted nihilism, pessimism, depression and / or learned helplessness.
Now the idiot will ignore me, given he cant even put forward one solved problem whilst claiming philosophy is about solving problems…I am really wasting time here.
solved: I am a thing that thinks/doubts/affirms.
Sorry, I have no interest in digging through the history of philosophy in order to find problems that philosophers have solved.
If leaving a problem unsolved for either of those reasons is in itself solving a problem and acceptable to you… then that undermines your objection to this statement:
Does it not?
Or perhaps you meant to reject the premise that it’s an unsolvable problem, rather than object to a lack of effort to solve a problem that can’t be solved?