After that, after that and after that?
What kind of game are we playing? So far I ask much and fail to do much.
I ask this, what do you want to become when you grew up and now what do you want to become? At the end what will everyone ultimately become?
There isn’t much more to ask, except where will our civilization take us years and years down the line.
We can philosophize about what perhaps the human race could evolve into.
Philosophy is becoming more scientific than anything else.
So basically besides what I just mentioned, we asked everything else, so yep thats it, its over.
Philosophy is about how you live your life, not neccesarily asking questions.
I thought the idea behind philosophy was to actually solve something and not just ask and answer questions all the time. If none of you have any plans on solving anything then why do you do it?
No one is willing to agree on anything, they like to argue.
Only if the majority agrees on a particular issue, then we can solve something. But this forum is not create or intented that way. Is was a way for asking what ever you want to ask, it is like letting go emotions.
Like, you are angry you want to let this anger go by hitting something.
I askk full of questions, I want to let this anxiety go by giving this disease to everyone else. So I will not be alone. 
OR vice versa from the first premise.
Regular ( or “real”) science attempts to find the truth thru observing phenomenon and formulation hypotheses that explain the available data. It then experimentally tests this hypothethesis to see if it can be proven or disproven.
Philosophy ( or “made up”) science is, um, made up. There’s really nothing to test or measure since it really doesn’t have anything important to do. This sucks when you’re trying to prove stuff, but it’s also good since you can never be proven wrong.
From time to time, philosophers do manage to come to agreements about certain things. These things are often called axioms. Once they’re created they give philosophers something to tear down and disprove. That’s good since that’s the main thing we need philosophers for in the first place.
Science cannot prove anything, as it relies on induction.
By contrast, you can very easily be proven wrong when doing philosophy. Far more easily than when doing science, I would wager. Especially when it comes to the ‘big questions’. The conclusions of the process of philosophy are more truth apt than scientific conclusions, simply by definition. This is something people often forget- especially when having debates such as “evolution vs. creationism”.
TheCDF- many philosophers disagree about what the proper business of philosophy is. There are so many different answers that students necessarily have to study “what other philosophers think philosophy is about” for a couple of months before doing a degree in the subject. Therefore, nobody can claim legitimately to hold the true answer to the question. The need for philosophy to do certain things has also changed a great deal over time, as certain problems have been overcome or things created. For example, there was once a time when philosophy was required to come up with such ideas as “potential” and “concepts” but now, as these are established parts of everyday language, philosophy need not concern itself with these and has moved on to asking if concepts are innate, or if not, how they are developed. Philosophy mixes with neuroscience alot, and computational sciences too.
Mr Kebop- Philosophy is not about how you live your life, that is ethics. Ethics is (in part) about how you live your life. Ethics is just one part of philosophy.
If you want to know more about what philosophy does, is doing and what philosophers are really like then why not read some philosophy journals? These are the places you can learn about what philosophers are are still alive are saying, thinking and doing. Some magazines also have great news sections about the movements of philosophers from organisation to organisation. For example, did you know that there are philosophers on various boards such as the American consult to big oil and the UN environmental office etc etc… bioethicisits, they are called.
I can only think that these “bioethicisists” are no more than paid whores, there to dispute any claims that oil causes any problems what so ever. How that for the noble causes of philosopers. Yeah, I know, who said they were noble.
i presume in your case wether you choose to act on it or not i is up to you…
i want to become a sucessfull music producer, dj and just maybe artist.
by end what do you mean, end of what ?
That’s a shame.
I was thinking the same thing.
please no fighting in my thread or you will be in the hall of shame.
The ending.
I don’t think philosophy has never proven nor disproven anything of any importance. Can you think of anything?
Of course, since they never really contain any truth or make statements of fact philosophers can readily enough claim to be right.
Oh, well. Real science will keep doing the heavy lifting and providing long coattails for philosophy to ride. 
Philosophy is more often than not about learning how to think and not what to think. Proof and proving things… this idea of physical proof is not Philosophical. A conclusion can be shown to be wrong, i.e. proven wrong - he was proven wrong in his opinion that blah blah… there is some ambiguity here over the word “proof”.
Well, it has proven a host of things: that it is better to be just than unjust, that God exists, that the knowledge of God’s eternal and infinite essence, which every idea includes within itself, is adequate and perfect (Prop. XLVI, Spinoza, Ethics).
Over time, however, you get anxious over what is real and what is not in what you speak about, the length at which you can expand your knowledge, the relation between what you think and what is. Eventually, you kind of arrive at the conclusion that there are no philosophies, there are only philosophers which kind of throws the las clods of dirt on the grave of what you had known.
Then you start over.
[quote=“dan020350”]
No one is willing to agree on anything, they like to argue.
quote]
I totally agree, this is the smartest thing I’ve seen on any messageboard.
[size=150]
SMART[/size]
arguing differences, is an identity thing all the way.
Here … here… Mucuis … philosophy might not make the head-lines but it opens up routes of thought and underpins existing thought.
I’m a complete philistine when it comes to science and have ‘it’ on my list of things I must learn to understand because my present uneducated take on it is that is predomnantly empirical which philosophy has taught me to be wary of.
Please dont everyone shout at me for this statement … but I would really appreciate it if someone could head me in a direction that would explain things like extrapolation!
Don’t get me wrong, I love philosophy. [drum roll]
Extrapolation ? You mean, like in maths ? Or that John McLaughlin albume ?
a stupid question doesnt doesnt have an answer, if a question doesnt make sense then the answer is based on an interpretation of what the reader thought you meant, clarify your questions, a proper question can get a proper answer…
the way or direction is your question.
Monk ask the patriarch, " Where is the way"
The patriarch saids," The way is in your question"
The monk bow down and left.