has anyone ever thought of why we live in a prison 'our mind’and why we can think outside of it’reason’i wish i knw more but philosophy doesnt get you anywhere becase the questions you ask cant be proved in other words philosophy sucks and the closest we will ever be to truth is science and that ,by far,is a long shot.agree everyone?
I think the philosophy of Jaspers might help here.
According to him, philosophy when all said and done amounts to very little. Consider every philosophical doctrine ever written that has attempted, in some way, to uncover the “truth” of our reality. All are fallible. All have some fault, or, at the very least, there is some fundamental part of the argument that we can point to and say “that might not be true”. Pick any doctrine you like, and someone, somewhere, has a very valid reason to disagreeing with it. Such is the bane of philosophy.
However, instead, then, of using philosophy as a means of obtaining answers, we flip it around and say that philosophy is a means of asking questions. Certainly, if we look at the history of philosophy, it has raised far more questions - via the faculty of doubt - than it has answered (which has led me to believe that philosophy is a means of determining falsity, fallibility or unverifiability - if that’s a word - rather than as a means of determining truth). If we view philosophy this way, then the “philosophizing” (the process) becomes more important than the “philosophy” (the result). Thus, if we examine philosophy from this perspective - which is one I’m gradually beginning to see the value in - then philosophy is no longer about the creation of any set of principles, but rather a means to evaluate a set of principles. Philosophy, at this point, ceases to be about what to think (even though most philosophy books are just a long list of fallible doctrines in this sense) and becomes a way of determining how to think.
Of course, the irony of this view is that it actually becomes a doctrine of sorts in itself (and is thus fallible in the same way as every other philosophical doctrine) but if we afford it the luxury of overlooking this small fact, then I see it as being a very valuable mode of thought.
Kind of like yin and yang (once again I have to relate things to this). Philosophy the contrast to science.
Philosophy, for me, is the process. Thinking and reasoning… Whether it be something you have always wanted to understand or something you do understand but just like to pick apart. The important thing is the process, not the solution, if there even is one.
-m
Imagine a world in which everything is already known in simple terms. Everything in this imaginary world has already been explained in terms of something else; and that something else has been explained in terms of something else. Everything can be predicted with absolute accuracy, including your next thought and action. You could watch a computer generated simulation of your life. You could fast-forward this simulation to any point in time up till your death. Thus, you could know what you will feel, think, and say at any moment in the future. You know exactly when you will die and you understand the exact nature of death itself. There are no questions in this world; no need for philosophy and science; no concept of awe and wonder.
Sublimed, which world would “suck” more, the one you now live in, or the above world in which all the “truths” are already old news? I’m very curious to hear your reply.
Michael
Does that imaginary world give free ice cream?
But in that world, you would already know the answer.
Philosophy is the critique of common sense. Common sense is just repackaged philosophy. Your common sense is telling you that Plato was right and that we don’t have to talk anymore.
I think that’s a mistake. 
Iam in agreement that part of philosophy’s task is to raise questions. I also believe that human reason is limited (as Kant pointed out), but that applies to all human endeavors , including science. Therefore, you might as well say science sucks a nut as well.
‘but philosophy doesnt get you anywhere becase the questions you ask cant be proved’
i like the ‘questions…can’t be proved’ part. but philosophy can be seen as a dialog between two or more people, where there is no result. perhaps instead of getting down about
‘the closest we will ever be to truth is science’
this lack of proof/truth could be thought of as ok, even stimulating.
Honestly I think the founders of philosophy had OTHER things than this
“babble” in mind (on this forum).
I guess this is the closest to what they were REALLY trying to say. Like most people on here talking about mind control, lemme tell ya this, “If you can control things with your mind, then how come you didn’t stop me from writing this message, EH!?”
Enough of mind control people, let’s get on something REALLY interesting, surely philosophy isn’t ALL about “mind control”?
Good point… now if you will excuse me ill go find that voodoo doll. Mwuahhahhahaha.
Just as a reminder, philosophy is the foundation of everything. As Morpheus once stated “It is the question that drives us…”
Once we find a provable answer to one of philosophy’ questions, out pops a science. Aristotle was the first biologist, but it wasn’t called Biology until scholars found that Aristotle was really onto something and there were provable answers to the questions proposed by Aristotle. The same happened with physiology. Psychology is the birth child of physiology and philosophy, if there are any Psychology majors here - maybe you can back this up.
One of my professors of philosophy in my university says, “The best definition of philosophy I ever heard is…What is X?”
So, to question intelligently, is to do philosophy.
Mr. Lee stated:
Sir, the only person apparently babbling is the one whom I am addressing right now. ANYTHING is worth talking about as long as people are willing to talk about it in a civilized manner. Civilized, Mr. Lee, civilized. You continually mock, demean, and label the members of this board in general. You’ve come to a part of your life where you have hit an egotistical wall, and can no longer make anymore progress. You have nothing smart to say, all you do is make general and obtuse judgements of others. Put down your ego, your judgements, your presupposition, and your assumptions…we are not who you take us to be. Even if you understood each and every one of us you would still fail to understand this community that is growing here at ilovephilosophy.com; we are more than the sum of our parts. If you are here to boost your ego, you are in the wrong place, if you are here to learn, grow, and to find your desiderata (that which is missing, but felt needed); whatever it may be for you - then welcome. But, quite your generalizations, assumptions, presuppositions, labelling, mocking, and demeaning - or I’ll get started on doing these to you. There is a chance for you to grow here Mr. Lee. But you must trust us, believe in us, and lastly; listen (I mean really listen) and respond to us.
Mr. Lee, please understand that I wish you the best, but I wish everyone the best to. So my view, in my opinion, is an objective one and the right one in this matter. If you disagree, that is too bad for me, if you agree, I think you will come to see things you never saw before, even things you never thought you would see…
What’s your take?
What kind of things will I see? 
Change and you’ll find out.
First, let me addess TRippQ. Are you implying that science doesn’t raise questions that it can’t prove? There are as many unanswered questions in science as there are in philosophy . Also, you should be aware that philosophy as Magius pointed out, was the birthplace of systematic study as we know it . Finally, Mr Lee you quote Bruce very well, but you are forgetting one thing, Bruce Lee had a degree in philosophy.
Also, Mr Lee I don’t believe you have even fully understood the very quote from Bruce Lee that you used. When Bruce says to be formless like water he does not mean this only on a physical level. To have your mind empty of all pressupositions and assumptions(whicn is what Magius was talking about), is what enables one to act with purpose (particularly in a fight-which is what Bruce was talking about. Or like Bruce himself said in the Aniversary edition of Enter The Dragon (with the previously unreleased scenes)- " When it hits…it hits all by itself".
Philosophy is not an answer, it does not contain answers and it does not attempt to. It is a SEARCH for knowledge, wisdom. Anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant, and foolish. The simple fact we have the ability to reason makes philosophy our only savior. Without it, nut-sucker, you wouldn’t even be able to say the phrase: “philosophy sucks a nut” in the first place.
Well spoken JRC, but a little anngry…don’t you think?
in reply to johnblocks post;
‘Are you implying that science doesn’t raise questions that it can’t prove?’
no, i am merely replying to:
‘the closest we will ever be to truth is science’
this seems to say that the closest thing to truth/proof of any one question or statement is science, not that science = truth in general.
‘philosophy doesnt get you anywhere becase the questions you ask cant be proved in other words philosophy sucks and the closest we will ever be to truth is science’
seems to say that philosophy sucks because the ‘questions you ask cant be proved’. the fact that answers cant be proved isn’t necessarily a problem. thats all. philosophy doesn’t have to be about the opposites of truth/nontruth; it can ‘not suck’.