What's your philosophical issue?

Most people who have interests in philosophy have at least one philophical doctrine that seems to contradict thier intuitions.
However, because solving philosophical problems is a task that most of us, (probably none of us) will never complete, we tend to struggle with rhetoric to try and force points about thing we are uncertain about.
If you could solve one philosophical problem, what would you like for it to be?
You don’t have to try and explain how you’d go about it. I’d appreciate it if people didn’t post about how they think they in fact have solved one.
Just a simple question: Which philosophical problem troubles you the most?
You can be as general or specific as you’d like.

So come on people, stop slacking around and post. I don’t want to see this thread die in 3 days. This could be really informative. You may read about a problem that you didn’t even know existed!

Scotty, two to beam-up.

One of my biggest philosophical problems is also one of my biggest philosophical solutions.

Determinism. My source and my “Causes”.
I’d like to know how to control them,
That is to say:
They wish to control each-other.
One wanteth to be over-top of the other.

A wolf cannot say, after it is born: “I want to be a horse”.
Overcoming every trace of my humanness is my philosophical problem.

Thank you Dan. That’s the type of response I’m looking for.
Let’s keep em coming.

Long time ago, when Dan~ was religious, this was probably his biggest philosophical issue:

“If ‘God’ is absolutely all-powerful, perfect, very loving, kind, and just, ‘God’ could have done all things more efficienctly, less wastefully, at lower cost and at lesser pain to ‘creation’.”

It really bothered me, that Xians said things such as, it was a test of our faith, or an exercise of free-will, which eventually resulted in all of our suffering on the earth.

If I created a car, would it be the fault of the car, if the car did not run properly, and broke down after 7 years?

According to the Christianish ideas others had pounded into my young mind, basically, the flaws of the thing built – are the fault of the thing built, and those flaws are not the fault of the builder…

I rejected these ideas completely, later-on, as I separated myself from that ideology, and [especially] my mother is still very upset that I have changed in such a way.

But, a human-being is still a construct, or mechanical building. We are made of many parts. And the ones whom formed us, are the ones whom created our faults or flaws, also.

Second theological issue, came later:
“A mother gives birth to her child out of necessity,
For species would die-out and go extinct if they did not bare children.
But a male ‘God’ or ‘Creator’ bore creation out of mere want.
‘He’ did not need any of it, but ‘He’ made it anyway…”

Creationism makes the universe into a petty whim.
In the bible, Gods creations are called is slaves or servants.
It is very degrading, to consider thyself a slave to a higher want,
And not a slave to lower need!

During that phase of my personal values,
I was in line with Cicero:
“The supriem law is the health of the people.”
I believed need, health, strength and sustainability were the ultimate or highest earthly values possible. Everything from murder to poisoning is “bad” because it is “unhealthy”. Kindness, repair, help, these are healing, and maintaining, etc.

And I would regect any ‘God’ which did not expend all of his or her powers in order to make all things more healthy.

It disgusted me that religious values revolved around moral conformities in any way that were ever not to do with health. And I considered real-doctors, inventors, and friends to be the ones whom deserved the most “worship”. I said:
“God doesn’t need anything.
Give to your friends, instead.
Worship your best friends.”

But I don’t even think about theology anymore.
I’d like to get out of it, WAY out. I’m not 100% out yet.

The biggest issue/unsolved problem is: How do we stop people from spamming the Philosophy board?

Stop fire by removing its fuel.
Stop entry by removing entrance-way.

How can philosophy enhance life? For all my interest in technical issues such as the possibility of synthetic a priori knowledge and how meaning is simultaneously created and deconstructed and all the rest, without it actually improving my life (and, I believe, some of those around me), I wouldn’t have stuck with it this long.

Let’s talk about that.

“Enhancement” means:
I want more of something here.
Something could be more developed, empowered or altered than it is.

Really. If you took nice walks by the beach every day, would that enhance your life? Or would it not.

And “your life”, is that a statement about a social-pleasure matrix,
Or is that the physical health of your own body,
Or is that your opinion and sensation about each day you percieve?

How is meaning created?
Oh, that’s so simple, for me.

Ring a bell, then give a lab-rat some sugar, a few seconds later.
Repeat process.
Soon, the meaning of the bell is sweetness.

No knowledge is synthetic.
Knowledge is blood.
It is of one of our most experimental bodyparts or processes.
I’d say, really. Knowledge is a form of electro-liquid…

I’d just like to know more about the concept of time.

I view it as an aether of interaction. Not a linear quantity. Time is speed, or energy, essentially. But time in common-place, is seen as a line, in the same way that your life is seen as a line. It’s just linear perspective of change, called “Time”, by they, and not I.

This book may be of interest to you.

vibrations, dude =D>


this is the most interesting book on time/ speed of culture that I’ve read.

Time Wars by Jeremy Rifkin

I wanna know more about synthetic a priori knowledge.

It’s impossible, but still the most significant epistemological idea in the last half-millenium.

Crime and punishment.

Are we driven toward an utopia in which we forgive trespasses as “couldn’t help it” and treat it as best as possible?


Are we driven toward a preferred justice, in which there may or may not be less suffering, but the instigators of real atrocities are punished much more severely than today.

Is the latter really less sophisticated? I can’t help but lean toward it.

My own problem aside- RE: synthetic apriori knowledge. My theory.

I believe we’re headed toward a wall in which greater computation is considered impossible unless we reformulate our understanding of the universe. At this point, we will maximize the efficiency of synthetic apriori for the sake of computation. There will no longer be logical symbols, there may not even be logic gates. Just “you can’t think faster than this.” But we’ll sit there and wonder- “Did we really figure out everything?” and the next challenge falls into place- “Must the universe just collapse and shut us out now?”

(External) Reality Manifestation. Or in other words: Causality after the degradation of linear ties.

‘The Secret’ and ‘What the bleep’ is the only ‘philosophy’ on this next paradigm and it’s not philosophy in any real sense.

I’m working on compiling some key concepts. Look for them soon.

Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the slings an arrows of outrageous fortune
or to bear arms against a sea of troubles – and by opposing end them.

Actually, after thinking about the question a little, it seems to me that after answering some initial questions,
philosophy itself is not so much about seeking the answers to questions as it is about seeking the One,
the Good, the True, and the Beautiful itself. …But isn’t that why we question in the first place?


If everything came from nothing, who created the nothing?

Or, if it all came out of nothing, who cleared out all the junk that was cluttering up the place so that there could be nothing for everything to come out from?

If time began with the beginning of the universe, how long did it take for the universe to begin.