What kind of philosophical questions do you find people ignoring? I think a lot of 'philosophical' questions are just questions that are immensely broad or abstract. The reason nobody answers those is probably along the lines nobody likes answering the question, "Why?" with too much detail. There's so much detail it would take too much effort to give all the details so people truncate their answers or change the subject.

If you ask a question like, "Can you think of any situation where it would be morally acceptable to commit murder?... genocide?" There are some out there situations I could see falling into 'acceptable' despite being immensely tragic, but it has a much more focused topic.

Of course the situation needs to be right also. Maybe you just need to save your philosophical discussions for your philosophical friends? Doing otherwise is like playing DnD with people who don't even take it seriously as a game; it ruins the experience for all the participants.

I like this thread. Now I can talk about my thoughts without everyone going ape shit. Anyway, I've been thinking about the reason normal people are well "normal." Most people are not interested in science, mathematics or any type of critical thinking. They generally tend to avoid needing to think at all costs. For example when posed with a philosophical question people generally tend to "either turn it into a joke or shrug it off saying "I dunno.""

Here is my theory why this is the norm. It all goes back to the way they were raised during early childhood when the Amygdala is developing. The Amygdala is the part of the brain which controls emotions and simulates further learning. That "small thrill" which many of us nerds feel from critical thinking is simply not present in the majority of people. That "small thrill" is instead gained primarily through social interaction.

My theory can be seen in so many previously unexplained phenomenons. Women generally tend to be more social skills and are better at language than men. On the flip side men generally tend to be better at science and mathematics. Likely this has to do with differences in the development of their Amygdala. The early presence of testosterone may play a small role in this but that is only one theory.

Looking at the differences in men and women I stubble on to an interesting coincidence. Researcher in many different studies have found that the right Amygdala is much more active in men than in women. On the other hand the left Amygdala is much more active in women. One example is this study on the difference in pain perception for both genders. Another example is this study on women's better emotional recall.

We can also see this in people with asperger's syndrome which is a weak form of autism. They tend to be abnormally intelligent but have very poor social and language skills. I randomly stumbled on to a study which shows that children with larger right amygdalae at 6 months had lower scores on their ability to communicate and comprehend language. It also said, "Associations between amygdala size and language outcomes have been reported in children with autism." Take note of the correlation between this study and gender studies.

Being a social thinker leads to a much higher chance of finding a mate and reproducing. Survival of the fittest one could say. Nerds are notoriously known for poor communication and social skills but high intelligence. Albert Einstein for example could not speak until he was 6 years old.To me the correlation between my theory and all of the studies I've read is unquestionable!

Yes, and in light of that most recent post I'd like to refer everyone to my previous comments.

Looking at the differences in men and women I stubble on to an interesting coincidence.

Me too! I stubble onto interesting coincidences all the time, except it's usually while shaving.

Are you saying that Albert Einstein had Asperger's???


Ontopic: As human beings, we think of this universe as the one and true universe. Everything we touch, feel, sense, interact with is real. But what happens, when the Matrix happens? Can one really argue that that isn't real? Our bodies are just interfaces to our brain that allows us perceive what is around us. The Matrix or anything similiar or partially similar to it is just another interface that allows us to perceive things around us. Is there any objective, empirical infallible measuring stick that can tell any sentient being what is really real and not-so-real?


And yes, I know there are terms, video games, and movies about this. But I always find it fascinating to think about.

To me the correlation between my theory and all of the studies I've read is unquestionable!

The first thing any budding armchair philosopher should learn, is the complete lack of any link between correlation and causation.

I hold a degree in Philosophy, and I have to say that it pains me to attempt a discussion with most 'armchair philosophers'. Because a) they don't know what the **** they are talking about, and b) they don't know that they don't know what the *** they are talking about.

If you are only going to read one philosophical text, make it Plato/Socrates on the subject of wisdom...

You're missing a * in your expletive. However, if the one or more * constitutes a substitution for the word, then does the number of * really matter? Is the existence of one directly tied to the numerical representation of the other?

Are you saying that Albert Einstein had Asperger's???

I only was going on the fact Albert Einstein was intelligent. However, since you bring up that question I did some research. Apparently it is a widely hypothesized theory that he did indeed have Asperger's.

You're missing a * in your expletive. However, if the one or more * constitutes a substitution for the word, then does the number of * really matter?

I guess it depends on whether * is a wildcard, or a greedy operator.

[quote name='SteveDeFacto' timestamp='1329940583' post='4915624']
To me the correlation between my theory and all of the studies I've read is unquestionable!

The first thing any budding armchair philosopher should learn, is the complete lack of any link between correlation and causation.

I hold a degree in Philosophy, and I have to say that it pains me to attempt a discussion with most 'armchair philosophers'. Because a) they don't know what the **** they are talking about, and b) they don't know that they don't know what the *** they are talking about.

If you are only going to read one philosophical text, make it Plato/Socrates on the subject of wisdom...
[/quote]

You hold a degree in Philosophy? Do you have any other degrees? Why would you go for Philosophy?