How do you deal with the fact that we can't know anything and that philosophy is an exercise in pseudo intellectual PR?
>Legal theory: Zero predictive power
Hell, nothing can escape the axiom - deduction framework and there is no "objective" way to pick axioms so all philosophy is worthless.
>>1199776
>all philosophy is worthless
your mom is worthless
>>1199776
The way I see it, every person has "a philosophy", whether they can label it or reference earlier people with similar contentions. The study of philosophy becomes the academic classification of different parts of these world views and explanations (apologies?) so we can better understand one another and work within this larger set of parameters.
Study of philosophy should not necessarily change your world view, but rather help you understand better yourself and others. Maybe sometimes you'll read something, and think "hey, that's a really good idea", or "damn, why was I thinking this, it pans out so badly", and accordingly this will modify your overall outlook, and it's fine when it happens, but it shouldn't be the aim.
>>1199776
your conclusion is self defeating
would you have come up with that theory had you not read philosophy or at least gained some skills under the discipline of philosophy?
>You can't know nuthin!!
>Except for this stuff that i'm now gonna tell you :^)
>>1199776
By trying to learn more and apply it to the best of my knowledge. Just because something cannot be obtained doesn't mean you shouldn't strive for it. You may never reach it, but you might just find something worthwhile in the process.
>>1199823
please post this for every cant kno nuffn ebin drawn german man thread and sage
>>1200804
It only becomes an issue when someone makes a claim of an absolute, transcident truth which OP is trying to do.
There are legitimate ways to go about making such truth claims but OP fails to follow the procedure. Claims of absolute truth have to start with epistemology or something like Aristotelian logic and showing a proof that certain things cannot be refuted or must be necessarily true. You can build from there but the theory can only go as far as it relates back to the original logical/epistemological axioms. This type of thinking pretty much requires a background in philosophy so people like OP that seem to hate philosophy could never pull it off.
>>1199790
What is an opinion?
