ITT: Practical Philosophy

[Anonymous No.13420177]

So there's a lot of philosophy that's just useless wank, regardless of how logical it is.

"What is truth?", "How do you define meaning?", "Are we perceiving objective reality?". It's so abstract as to be entirely worthless and inapplicable to real people. Secondly, there can be only one right answer for each question. Just like you can be either dead or alive, but not both at once, so too can only one philosophical principle be the right one. Either the Christians are right and we burn in hell for eternity, or the Buddhists are right and we reincarnate endlessly, or the atheists are right and there's nothing after death and so on. A lot of philosophy downplays or makes light of the fact we're not purely logical beings, when in fact emotion and experience play a massive part in how we view the world and how we act in it. So any philosophy that doesn't take account of this is flawed to begin with and therefore impractical. Another common problem is word vomit, writers incapable of expressing themselves in clear, easily understood language because they either refuse to make an effort for the sake of others or because they think their ideas are so complex they're deserving of all these unique terms and convoluted explanations when it's never actually true.

My personal view is that there's too many pseud's and larping shitposters on /lit/ and not enough real world philosophical discussion.

[Anonymous No.13420191]

i need philosophy about how to perfectly use the space in my room, the perfect arrangement of every piece of furniture so no room is lost, space is maximized, cleaning should be very easy.

I have tried a vast amount of arrangements now, but how do i ifind the perfect, golden ratio inspired arrangement.
ROUND OR EDGY FURNITURE, WHICH ONE IS SUPERIOR.
I have arrived at the conculison that it is edgy furniture, with round edges, basically having the advantages of both worlds.

[Anonymous No.13420194]

>>13420177
true philosophy is accepting christian doctrine unconditionally, without relying on anything but the words that you were given, tossing all objections aside in favour of faith

[Anonymous No.13420203]

What you need, fren, is good ol' American Pragmatism, a la William James.

[Anonymous No.13420252]

>>13420177
Frege was looking into value logic and late witt was too (German thing). Basically I'm curious how to objectively map value and I use that by denying subjectivity

[Anonymous No.13420294]

>>13420177
Unironically pragmatism and the Stoics

[Anonymous No.13420304]

>>13420203
>>13420294
B-but Charlie Peirce told me that philosophy is either useless or meaningless

[Anonymous No.13420312]

>>13420294
This

>>13420177
Literally the Greeks, OP.

[Anonymous No.13420333]

the bible desu, especially eccelsitates proverbs, psalms, the gospels, daniel..

actually most of it

[Anonymous No.13420442]

>>13420177
1, "Practical Philosophy" means "ethics"
2, >"What is truth?"
As soon as you seriously dabble with philosophy, you realize, you get from one question to the other. One of the first questions which arises is this very question: if you don't have a defendable concept of truth, pretty much everything you say is worthless. And if you don't even realize that's not an abstract problem at all, so much the worse for you.
3, >A lot of philosophy downplays or makes light of the fact we're not purely logical beings, when in fact emotion and experience play a massive part in how we view the world and how we act in it.
Pretty much all of philosophy takes that into account.
4, >Another common problem is word vomit, writers incapable of expressing themselves in clear, easily understood language
That's the one thing I agree with you. Nevertheless, you have to distinguish senseless gibberish (which undeniably exists in philosophy) from technical language because the latter might sound like gobbledygook to laymen, too.

Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate your general thought - never give up on it - but as soon as you'll really get into philosophy, you'll realize how naive it is.

[Anonymous No.13420448]

Just read the nicohmachean ethics.

[Anonymous No.13420641]

>>13420177
The some of the Greeks (Stoicism, Epicureanism) were pretty practical.
Arguably, so were 19th century writers like Schopenhauer or Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.13420696]

>>13420177
>My personal view is that there's too many pseuds and larping shitposters on /lit/
You're 100% right about that part.
>everything else
Look, it may be wank, but if you like to wank, fucking do it. Are you a slave to labor and survival, or do you want to get things done while you're on this earth that you and you alone want to get done? Then fucking do "useless" "worthless" philosophy and achieve your human purpose. Otherwise you're just submissive, wanting to be cog in the machine, labor for your bread and die. Use your fuel and burn brightly. None of this "it's worthless" crap. That's so defeatist. But you do raise an ok point about how there should be philosophy that serves others more practically, stuff like ethics or philosophy of well-being. Thing is that stuff exists, and it's valuable, and nobody's knocking it down from among those who do the "useless" stuff, so what gives.
>>13420203
Look Peirce is alright but when it comes to agreeing or disagreeing with him, end of the day fuck him, fuck infinite semiosis, fuck pragmatic theory of truth, because it's super wrong, this guy was one of the architects of analytic and continental anti-realism, they've made our lives and philosophy itself literally the matrix, pure simulacrum, Peirce is part of the beginning of the metaphysical bluepill that philosophers of the 20th century decided to take because they were desperate that science was getting "work" done and traditional metaphysics wasn't. That's exactly the problem with everyone today. Stop thinking you should do something just because it's a means to some labor end or some survival end. This is why shitheads make threads on /lit/ about why poetry and fiction and literature overall are also "useless" and a "waste of time." A society that blames you for wanting to have leisure instead of blaming the conditions which make that leisure impossible is fucked up, so there's the practical philosophy OP wants to hear.

[Anonymous No.13420703]

>>13420696
>Look Peirce is alright but when it comes to agreeing or disagreeing with him, end of the day fuck him, fuck infinite semiosis, fuck pragmatic theory of truth, because it's super wrong, this guy was one of the architects of analytic and continental anti-realism, they've made our lives and philosophy itself literally the matrix, pure simulacrum, Peirce is part of the beginning of the metaphysical bluepill that philosophers of the 20th century decided to take because they were desperate that science was getting "work" done and traditional metaphysics wasn't. That's exactly the problem with everyone today. Stop thinking you should do something just because it's a means to some labor end or some survival end. This is why shitheads make threads on /lit/ about why poetry and fiction and literature overall are also "useless" and a "waste of time." A society that blames you for wanting to have leisure instead of blaming the conditions which make that leisure impossible is fucked up, so there's the practical philosophy OP wants to hear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjDgGVwHebE

[Anonymous No.13420707]

>>13420696
Good post

[Anonymous No.13420711]

>>13420696
Bad post

[Anonymous No.13420723]

>>13420177
>>13420203
>Grant an idea or believe to be true, what concrete difference will its being true make in anyone's actual life? What experiences may be different from those which would obtain if the belief were false? How will the truth be realized? What, in short, is the truth's cash-value in experiential terms? True ideas are those that we can assimilate, validate, corroborate, and verify.

>No matter whether any mind extant in the universe possess truth or not, what does the notion of truth signify ideally? What kind of things would true judgments be in case they existed? The answer which pragmatism offers is intended to cover the most complete truth that can be conceived of, 'absolute' truth if you like, as well as truth of the most relative and imperfect description ... It is not a theory about any sort of reality, or about what kind of knowledge is actually possible; it abstracts from particular terms altogether, and defines the nature of a possible relation between them.

>The further limits of our being plunge, it seems to me, into an altogether other dimension of existence from the sensible and merely 'understandable' world. Name it the mystical region, or the supernatural region, whichever you choose. So far as our ideal impulses originate in this region (and most of them do originate in it, for we find them possessing us in a way for which we cannot articulately account), we belong to it in a more intimate sense than that in which we belong to the visible world, for we belong in the most intimate sense wherever our ideals belong. Yet the unseen region in question is not merely ideal, for it produces effects in this world. When we commune with it, work is actually done upon our finite personality, for we are turned into new men, and consequences in the way of conduct follow in the natural world upon our regenerative change. But that which produces effects within another reality must be termed a reality itself, so I feel as if we had no philosophic excuse for calling the unseen or mystical world unreal.

[Anonymous No.13420848]

>>13420696
Peirce was a realist. Are you talking about representationalism?
Peirce frequently said that all science, especially metaphysics, was useless, and should be useless, and said that we should leave practical work to the middlings. Something like "putting a scientist to work is like burning diamonds to power a steam engine" he absolutely despised utilitarian ethics, denouncing them as "the gospel of greed". I'm pretty sure the only reason he was against the abolition of slavery is because he was fooled by circumstances into believing in white supremacy and wanted to keep the white privilege of laying around doing useless things all day.
You would like peirce, you should read him because you obviously haven't.

[Anonymous No.13420891]

>>13420848
There's a reason I said fuck infinite semiosis and fuck pragmatic theory of truth specifically.

[Anonymous No.13420898]

>>13420891
Well then, go on and spit it out. You best have a good reason.

[Anonymous No.13420933]

>>13420191
Thought

[Anonymous No.13420937]

>>13420898
Infinite semiosis is one of several ways that the doctrine of a given has been attacked. You may know others. You have stuff like Saussure's semiotics where signs bounce off each other with no need to relate to an external world, you have ordinary language philosophers like Wittgenstein, Austin, Ryle criticizing sense data, you have Sellars calling the given a "myth." When Derrida says there's nothing outside the text you wonder if, regardless of what context that quote has, it encapsulates something about the 20th century anti-realist zeitgeist. And then you have people like Rorty. It's worth noting that people like Rorty rightfully believe that dismissing the idea of direct access or intuition of a given is one pillar for constructing thoroughgoing anti-realism and killing off any hope of correspondence theories of truth, or metaphysical realism, or foundationalism, or anything like that. Though people like Rorty (or Dummett or Wittgenstein or others, even Carnap) have a knack for saying they're not anti-realists because they think the realist thesis is meaningless so its negation also must be; they see themselves as deflationists above the debate, but from any realist perspective they're anti-realists. Which brings us to the pragmatic theory of truth. However Peirce or other people may have understood it in his day, it certainly generated an anti-realist legacy. The idea that what is useful is all that truth meaningfully is, and that anything beyond that might as well be meaningless because it is "useless," owes its partial genesis to Peirce.

[Anonymous No.13420941]

>>13420177
Here you can see a man that didn't stary with the greeks. Unironically

[Anonymous No.13420965]

>>13420191
Thought about this myself before. Maybe it's more a problem of optimization.
No furniture with empty space beneath it unless it's easy to clean under there. No open cupboards, everything must be behind doors, decorative elements need to very limited or under a display case to minimize dusting and cleaning. Space should be utilized in a way that balances convenience and comfort - huge distances are to be devoided but empty space to walk in makes you happier. I suppose high ceilings are pleasant.
Washing machine and dryer should be next to each other. Often uses items and heavy stuff should not be kept below waist height - actually nothing should. Ideally you'd have variable heights for the kitchen and the like.

I saw a book recommended here once about the philosophy of architecture in regards to city planning and living space. Don't remember the name but it was interesting.

[Anonymous No.13420977]

This is the entire point of Confucianism and Aztec Philosophy. Look into them.

[Anonymous No.13420987]

>>13420696
>Stop thinking you should do something just because its a means to some labor end or some survival end
Are you familiar with Alan Watts and his "How to get out of you own way" talk?
I think he nails this concept right on the head and goes even deeper

[Anonymous No.13420999]

>>13420203
And BASED ROBERTO UNGER

[Anonymous No.13421031]

>>13420177
The Bible is the most practical book out there, especially the New Testament. Not only does it give you an idea of perfection to strive towards, but it also comforts you in life and in the moments of death, because though you aren’t perfect, and you sin, Jesus can wash away those sins, allowing you to come near God in the afterlife. ALL other religions teach otherwise. They only emphasize good works, as if that’s enough to come near God. And not only that, but Christianity is really the only true exclusive religion. Sure, if Buddhism is true, then we reincarnate again, but surely a good Christian won’t have a bad new life? But if Christianity is true, then Buddhists are screwed. But of course, this isn’t the only reason why you should choose Christianity. It has wisdom, prophecies, miracles, history spanning millennia...it is THE religion. Even Islam allows you to be a Christian:
Quran:
>(2:62) Whether they are the ones who believe (in the Arabian Prophet), or whether they are Jews, Christians or Sabians – all who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and do righteous deeds – their reward is surely secure with their Lord; they need have no fear, nor shall they grieve.

And every other religion either allows to be a Christian, or it’s some random African religion we’ve never heard of, and it certainly isn’t as beautiful as Christianity.

Christianity is the most reasonable, beautiful, practical religion out there.

[Anonymous No.13421040]

>>13421031
>but how can I just have faith?
Deuteronomy 4:29
>But from there you will seek the Lord your God and you will find him, if you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul.
Proverbs 8:17
>I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me.
Jeremiah 29:13
>You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.
Matthew 7:7-8
>Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.
Isaiah 55:6-7
>Seek the Lord while he may be found; call upon him while he is near; let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
Lamentations 3:25
>The Lord is good to those who wait for him, to the soul who seeks him.
James 4:8
>Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.
2 Chronicles 7:14
>If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.
Matthew 5:6
>Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.

[Anonymous No.13421105]

>>13420937
>Infinite semiosis is one of several ways that the doctrine of a given has been attacked.
No it isn't, at least not by Peirce for sure. In Peirce's continuous semiosis, the given isn't simply given, it's the gift that was given with the beginning of the universe and it keeps on giving. It's an evolutionary gift. The semieotic was laid on the foundation of phaneroscopy, the first category of the phaneron, firstness, *is* the given, and Peirce's system falls apart without it. Firstness corresponds to the object of the sign, and abduction in his logic of inquiry.
>It's worth noting that people like Rorty rightfully believe that dismissing the idea of direct access or intuition of a given is one pillar for constructing thoroughgoing anti-realism
It's worth noting that Peirce certainly does not dismiss direct access, what he dismisses is basing epistemological claims on firstness. It's anti-psychological representationalism, the representations are situated in reality.
The pragmatic maxium is not to dismiss what is useless as meaningless. It's purpose is to understand what something truly means by weighing it's meanings practical effects on the understanding. I'm not explaining it very well, but pragmatism is supposed to find and nullify falliblity. It's an epistemological maxim, not a semiotic critique. You realize that crude misunderstanding is the reason Peirce distanced himself from pragmatism and turned into a pragmaticist?

[Anonymous No.13421259]

>>13421105
[Part I]
>You realize that crude misunderstanding is the reason Peirce distanced himself from pragmatism and turned into a pragmaticist?
I am aware yeah.
>No it isn't, at least not by Peirce for sure. In Peirce's continuous semiosis, the given isn't simply given, it's the gift that was given with the beginning of the universe and it keeps on giving. It's an evolutionary gift. The semieotic was laid on the foundation of phaneroscopy, the first category of the phaneron, firstness, *is* the given, and Peirce's system falls apart without it. Firstness corresponds to the object of the sign, and abduction in his logic of inquiry.
I'd love to read more Peirce to see more about the phaneroscopy stuff, but just to clarify, here's where Peirce's reliance on infinite semiosis feels like it's undermining any access of the given, foundationalism, realism, etc: [Con't in next post]

[Anonymous No.13421263]

>>13421105
>>13421259
[Part II]
Peirce in “Questions Concerning Certain Faculties Claimed for Man”:
>We have, therefore, a variety of facts, all of which are most readily explained on the supposition that we have no intuitive faculty of distinguishing intuitive from mediate cognitions. Some arbitrary hypothesis may otherwise explain any one of these facts; this is the only theory which brings them to support one another. Moreover, no facts require the supposition of the faculty in question. Whoever has studied the nature of proof will see, then, that there are here very strong reasons for disbelieving the existence of this faculty. These will become still stronger when the consequences of rejecting it have, in this paper and in a following one, been more fully traced out.
>QUESTION 5. Whether we can think without signs.
This is a familiar question, but there is, to this day, no better argument in the affirmative than that thought must precede every sign. This assumes the impossibility of an infinite series. But Achilles, as a fact, will overtake the tortoise. How this happens, is a question not necessary to be answered at present, as long as it certainly does happen.
>Moreover, we know of no power by which an intuition could be known. For, as the cognition is beginning, and therefore in a state of change, at only the first instant would it be intuition. And, therefore, the apprehension of it must take place in no time and be an event occupying no time. Besides, all the cognitive faculties we know of are relative, and consequently their products are relations. But the cognition of a relation is determined by previous cognitions. No cognition not determined by a previous cognition, then, can be known. It does not exist, then, first, because it is absolutely incognizable, and second, because a cognition only exists so far as it is known.
Peirce seems to be saying that 1) there is no sure faculty by which we can tell apart an immediate unmediated cognition (intuition, or direct access to the given as I put it) from something mediated, 2) there's nothing wrong with infinite semiosis if that ended up true (an endless chain of cognitive mediation upon mediation ad infinitum), and 3) because of (1) and (2), we should conclude there is no such thing as intuition or immediate cognition. And the very last line seems to sneak in the pragmatic theory of truth: intuition isn't real because, since we couldn't possibly tell it apart, then its unknowability as such means it's as good as non-existent. Maybe you can tell me where I've gone wrong here, or what additional context will remedy my present disappointment.

[Anonymous No.13421273]

>>13420203
cringe and correlationismpilled

[Anonymous No.13421278]

>>13421105
>>13421259
[Part II]
Peirce in “Questions Concerning Certain Faculties Claimed for Man”:
>We have, therefore, a variety of facts, all of which are most readily explained on the supposition that we have no intuitive faculty of distinguishing intuitive from mediate cognitions. Some arbitrary hypothesis may otherwise explain any one of these facts; this is the only theory which brings them to support one another. Moreover, no facts require the supposition of the faculty in question. Whoever has studied the nature of proof will see, then, that there are here very strong reasons for disbelieving the existence of this faculty. These will become still stronger when the consequences of rejecting it have, in this paper and in a following one, been more fully traced out.
>QUESTION 5. Whether we can think without signs. This is a familiar question, but there is, to this day, no better argument in the affirmative than that thought must precede every sign. This assumes the impossibility of an infinite series. But Achilles, as a fact, will overtake the tortoise. How this happens, is a question not necessary to be answered at present, as long as it certainly does happen.
>Moreover, we know of no power by which an intuition could be known. For, as the cognition is beginning, and therefore in a state of change, at only the first instant would it be intuition. And, therefore, the apprehension of it must take place in no time and be an event occupying no time. Besides, all the cognitive faculties we know of are relative, and consequently their products are relations. But the cognition of a relation is determined by previous cognitions. No cognition not determined by a previous cognition, then, can be known. It does not exist, then, first, because it is absolutely incognizable, and second, because a cognition only exists so far as it is known.
Peirce seems to be saying that 1) there is no sure faculty by which we can tell apart an immediate unmediated cognition (intuition, or direct access to the given as I put it) from something mediated, 2) there's nothing wrong with infinite semiosis if that ended up true (an endless chain of cognitive mediation upon mediation ad infinitum), and 3) because of (1) and (2), we should conclude there is no such thing as intuition or immediate cognition. And the very last line seems to sneak in the pragmatic theory of truth: intuition isn't real because, since we couldn't possibly tell it apart, then its unknowability as such means it's as good as non-existent. Maybe you can tell me where I've gone wrong here, or what additional context will remedy my present disappointment.

[Anonymous No.13421434]

>>13421278
Read late Peirce, he dismisses his earlier weak realism, embraces something like a radical embodied theory of cognition and semiotic animism where "signs are living things" and the facility of thought is embodied in signs.
1)What he is on to here, isn't so much denying that we have direct access to the given, but that knowledge of that access can only be accessed through meditation, because what comes first can only be known thirdly. There aren't different categories of cognition like immediate cognition, and meditation, rather those are categories universal in all cognition.
2) only immediacy(the given) can be meditated on. Meditation gives a new immediacy, that comes into conflict with the understanding (secondness), this is meditated and thus what is given, grows with the understanding.
Read through both volumes of the essential Peirce. it's widely acknowledged that there are several Peirce's that give sometimes conflicting accounts. His later work is extremely realist.
I'm in the awkward position of having started philosophy with Peirce, as a terrible student with no skills or discipline. I'm currently working on other philosophies so I'm not so ignorant. When I'm ready to return to Peirce with a systematic reading, I'll be able to comfortably cite text and hopefully have a clearer understanding.
It's funny that you mention the given. I was hoping that reading some attacks on the given might show me some errors with Peirce and help alleviate the burden of his influence on my naive self, or help me feel more secure being a Peirceian.

[Anonymous No.13421452]

>>13420696
You've just plucked at the very heartstring of /lit/. No one here really understands politics, and no one cares enough to begin the tedious process of enumerating social functions, the necessary prelude to critique, and there is a latent sense of fear or anxiety that any such listing would be perfunctory and would never catch the essence of the deeper, unspoken trapping of behavior. We're all a little American.

[Anonymous No.13421478]

>>13421452
No one gives a fuck about politics because it doesn't matter. It's peak self indulgence and peak useless wankery.

[Anonymous No.13421491]

>>13420177
Imagine thinking this.

[Anonymous No.13421511]

>>13421478
>How social life is structured doesn't matter

I'd love to see how you deal with auto repair

[Anonymous No.13421548]

>>13421511
>How social life is structured doesn't matter
It doesn't. Fuck society, I don't give a flying fuck about it. After I die my lineage ends, I don't have to worry about my descendants. And the only people who influence politics right now are those who do it for a living, who spend their whole lives doing it, you sitting there being all knowledgeable about the pro's and con's of Ecuadorian economics doesn't help you one bit.

Voting is a joke, what practical benefit is a vote when 99/100 voters are entirely uninformed and going off gut feeling?

[Anonymous No.13421604]

>>13421548
Feels are still a better basis for operation in the world than your pussy-ass npc mentality

[Anonymous No.13421612]

>>13421478
>useless wankery
>>13421548
>practical benefit

[Anonymous No.13421622]

>>13421548
>After I die my lineage ends, I don't have to worry about my descendants.
Thanks. Looks like our collective gene pool really dodged a bullet on that one.

[Anonymous No.13421675]

>>13421622
Why? Because I don't buy into your delusional, pathetic obsession with something you have no control over? If you're not a politician IN government, you're not only wasting your time, you're wasting your time AND walking around with a giant ego about how well informed you are like a brainlet retard.

[Anonymous No.13421678]

>>13421604
>P-Pussy!
Why do you waste your time on politics when your vote doesn't matter and unless you're a politician you have no actual power?

[Anonymous No.13421842]

>>13421548
>>13421678
>federal elections are the whole of politics

Don't worry, since you'll be in 9th grade this fall, you'll be forced to take basic civics class

[Anonymous No.13421867]

>>13421842
I don't live in your 3rd world shithole, amerimutt

[Anonymous No.13421893]

>>13421867
How will I ever recover

[Anonymous No.13422165]

>>13421434
Thanks anon, I should definitely read more Peirce some time. I figured there might have been different stages of his philosophical development that might be all perfectly congruent with each other. For what it's worth, if you want to read attacks on the given to test yourself and see if it will either change your mind or reinforce your present standing, Sellars' "Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind" is ultimately essential. I disagree with it completely but it's important reading. Rorty also talks about Sellars and similar stuff in Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. That book is nice and literary. I haven't finished it but I enjoyed what I've read so far, even if I disagree with it. J.L. Austin also has things to say against sense data in Sense and Sensibilia, but I've not read that.

[Anonymous No.13422177]

>>13420696
>This is why shitheads make threads on /lit/ about why poetry and fiction and literature overall are also "useless" and a "waste of time."
They're right, you know.

[Anonymous No.13422220]

>>13422177
I'm going to do all the useless waste-of-time shit I can do and you're not going to stop me. We're on this world to actually live it, not be a slave.

[Anonymous No.13422237]

>>13420177

holy shit

summer /lit/ is grotesque.

[Anonymous No.13422251]

>>13420696
holy shit this post is such an embarrassment. still not as bad as op

[Anonymous No.13422296]

>>13422220
>and you're not going to stop me.
We'll see about that.

[Anonymous No.13422327]

>>13422296

[Anonymous No.13422335]

>>13422251
What's your own take on the matter anon?

[Anonymous No.13422424]

>>13420177
>a lot of
>philosophy
>just
>useless
>logical
>abstract
>entirely
>worthless
>inapplicable
>real
>people
>question

etc.

What do you mean by these?

[Anonymous No.13422559]

>>13422424
>>a lot of
more then two
>>philosophy
anything related to the human mind
>>just
the infliction of the states ruling laws, that's justice,
>>useless
that which does not exist
>>logical
that which does exist
>>abstract
that in between existance and non-existance
>>entirely
most of
>>worthless
that which existed before humans
>>inapplicable
that which only partially exists.
>>real
time, or tachyon
>>people
yes
>>question
i am.
I'm not the guy you responded to a I just wanted to play along.

[Anonymous No.13424044]

>>13420177
>There can be only one right answer for each question
Stopped right there. Don't even bother bringing religion into your flawed logic. Go back to hitting the books and expanding your mind because you're still thinking small time to be taken seriously.

[Anonymous No.13424068]

>>13424044
>wahhh everyone gets to be right
No retard