I was searching around the net last night, looking for someone’s opinionated idea of a top ten list of philosophical questions. Why was I doing this? Well, that could be a question all in itself; and while one could slave over metaphysics trying to wrench an answer out of quoting an existialist, the answer would in fact be much less complicated that it would seem.
So… I did find a couple places that posted some reasonable top ten lists, but even those lists seemed shallow… missouri.edu/~philwww/show-me/?p=157 netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/93q2/top10philos.html
There was one question I felt amused by in the first link; number eight, asking: “Does time have a begining?” Such wonderful nonsense! I could just as well call that a trick question as time didn’t exist, yes?
The glorious point to all this is a chance for you to present to the forum your idea of a top ten list of philosophical questions. My sentiments in this are in regarding to finding such a list that certainly makes for much more talk than the two I have found.
Why is there something rather than nothing at all?
*The human mind isolates parts of a whole everything, then calls that piece a “something”.
If two persons who have all the same experiences disagree about some matter of fact has at least one of them violated some rule of good reasoning?
*The “rule of good reasoning” is a constructed code, optional and subjective. What violates “rule of good reasoning” A – does not violate “rule of good reasoning” B. This is a yes and no answer, to a relativistic question.
If two distinct objects have something in common then in what ways are they the same and different?
*Lol. Did a 7 year old kid write this one?
In what ways are a 7 year old and a 10 year old philosopher the same and different???..
[everyone now has to marvel at my wis-dumb]
Since my acts are caused by my choices and my choices caused by my beliefs and desires and my beliefs and desires are not in my direct control, how can it be that my acts are free?
*If you hadn’t noticed, your an organic, mechanic AI. DNA is a form of code/programming. Big, smart assed PC, you are.
When we say ‘Pegasus does not exist’ what subject are we talking about?
*Greek mythos.
Or,
A constellation in the Northern Hemisphere near Aquarius and Andromeda.
Is what is good good because the gods commanded it or did the gods command it because it was good? (Alt: Are the things that are valuable, valuable because we value them or do we value them because they are valuable?)
*“Good” is a form of aproval, too subjective. Yes and no.
Must there be some basic element of reality from which everything else is composed?
*All structures are composed of elements.
“elements of reality” depend on which reality, but from what I’ve seen, all forms of structure require elemental units/orders.
Does time have a beginning?
*Yes. Timespace had a beginning and only applies to a certain portion of what is.
If I think of a being greater than which none can be *conceived must this being exist?
In the form of a thought, yes. Physically? No.
Since minds have properties natural objects lack, how *can minds be a part of nature?
Minds are natural objects.
~
[now for serious replies to link2]
Through interactions, through the sensory organs.
Fallowing/serving your instincts.
[some of the questions I will skip, because they are non-sense]
Answered questions. The nature of knowledge is relative to human instinct. The brain releases a small amount of a certain chemical each time it solves a sort of problem. For this reason, all forms of learning are instinctively motivated and are problem-solving processes.
Everything from a PC game to a physics class is a form of problem solving. The problem is “solved” once the human mind becomes capable of predicting the future/potential behavior of the object or system in question.
It’s as unique as a human finger print. It’s a local, internally determined meaning. Each life has its own unique meaning.
~
Correct.
~
I will pop some “philosophical” questions now.
[b]1:
How do we control what we are? And then how do we control what is controlling what we are?
2:
Should philosophy always ascend into biology? [Understanding the reason for the behavior of a species].
3:
Does subjective wisdom die without enough objective fuel?[/b]
Hmm - I think that if people were more practiced at doing philosophy well - which many philosophers are not - the top 10 questions would include these.
From an axiomatic approach, how to humans tend to operate? This is especially interesting regarding rational humans - what do scientists take as axioms?
There are two types of randomness - internal randomness, and external randomness. Internal randomness is where a system may be deterministic, but a being in the system cannot predict the future of that system. External randomness is where no being outside the system could predict it (think god) - the system is truly random, at least in part. The question, then, is this: is it possible for a system to be externally random in a way that is qualitatively different from being internally random?
Can we prove that English (or language that follows the general construction rules of human language) is primal - that is, that any sentence in English can be broken down into a conjunction of logical primes?
Conceiving of an entity as a nested axiomatic system in a greater axiomatic system, can we determine all the necessary relations between the greater system (the universe) and the entity (the person)? For example, it may seem that the entity believes some things that are true in the universe; but in the “brain in a vat” example we can see that this isn’t necessarily true.
Under what circumstances does a generalized logical system contain all its logical primes?
These are questions whose answers would significantly further our understanding of not only certain parts of philosophy, but in many ways, how we do philosophy.
Twiffy, no offence meant, but they sound like intensely boring philosophical questions. As well as presupposing adherence to certain philosophical schools of thought.
Shudder, brings back thoughts of extreme boredom in lecture theatres.
Yes, I agree they’re liable to be boring to the average lay-practitioner of philosophy, and even to a number of professional academics. My point in stating those questions was less to assert that those are pivotal questions (although I think they are, even if some of them may not make a more exhaustive and reasonable top 10), and more to state that more of the interesting-sounding questions are not worthwhile questions. They’re either already answered (do we have free will?), or else badly phrased / unanswerable / stupid questions (why is there something rather than nothing? and, when we say `Pegasus does not exist’ what subject are we talking about?).
Can you give examples of questions that are more interesting to the average person and still worthwhile and very important?
I dont think there is an Order to philosophical questions. No one question is more important than another. Some questions may be asked more often is this what you meant??
Why is there something rather than nothing at all?
Because aparently it feels like it.
If two persons who have all the same experiences disagree about some matter of fact has at least one of them violated some rule of good reasoning?
They must have different taste.
If two distinct objects have something in common then in what ways are they the same and different?
It’s like Danny deVito and Aarnold Schwarzenegger in Twins.
Since my acts are caused by my choices and my choices caused by my beliefs and desires and my beliefs and desires are not in my direct control, how can it be that my acts are free?
Acts are compulsion. The only freedom is in refraining from acting as a compulsion
When we say ‘Pegasus does not exist’ what subject are we talking about?
Super Marion Bros 3
Is what is good good because the gods commanded it or did the gods command it because it was good? (Alt: Are the things that are valuable, valuable because we value them or do we value them because they are valuable?)
Honestly, who has ever heard of a good God?
Must there be some basic element of reality from which everything else is composed?
reality is rooted in itself.
Does time have a beginning?
If there were a beginning to time there must have been something before that beginning - the end of the period before time. This of course is nonsense. Time is must logically be either circular or fiction.
If I think of a being greater than which none can be *conceived must this being exist?
probably not.
Since minds have properties natural objects lack, how *can minds be a part of nature?
Why is there something rather than nothing at all?
Metaphysical lust.
If two persons who have all the same experiences disagree about some matter of fact has at least one of them violated some rule of good reasoning?
They must have different taste.
If two distinct objects have something in common then in what ways are they the same and different?
It’s like Danny deVito and Aarnold Schwarzenegger in Twins.
Since my acts are caused by my choices and my choices caused by my beliefs and desires and my beliefs and desires are not in my direct control, how can it be that my acts are free?
All acts are compulsion. The only freedom is in refraining from answering to compulsion.
When we say ‘Pegasus does not exist’ what subject are we talking about?
Mario 3
Is what is good good because the gods commanded it or did the gods command it because it was good? (Alt: Are the things that are valuable, valuable because we value them or do we value them because they are valuable?)
Honestly, who has ever heard of a good god?
Must there be some basic element of reality from which everything else is composed?
All reality is rooted in itself. There is nothing real which isn’t built from it’s own seed.
Does time have a beginning?
If there were a beginning to time there must have been something before that beginning - the end of that which was before time, which negates the concepts of time, beginning, and beginning of time. Time can hence not stretch from beginning A to end B, it is necessarily either circular or doesn’t exist.
If I think of a being greater than which none can be *conceived must this being exist?
probably not.
Since minds have properties natural objects lack, how *can minds be a part of nature?