Are Philosophical questions worth asking if there could never be agreement on an answer?

Question

I think it's an interesting question. Of course, philosophy aims to discuss the question, not come up with an answer (e.g. "Does God exist").

So - your serious opinion, please!

Answer 1

First of all, never is a very long time. Just because some questions we are pondering seem as if they will never have an answer, it hardly means that they actually never will. There have certainly already been any number of examples of questions answered by means that couldn't even be imagined a thousand of years ago... so why not a thousand years from now?

Sometimes even if you can't figure out what the exact correct answer is, you can figure out what it is NOT. And that can be almost as useful as the correct answer itself. To take your example, even if no philosopher can definitively say whether any god exists, there are probably many gods that they can definitively say do NOT exist. And knowing where not to look for something can help you focus your efforts on where you should look.

Even questions which can never even hope to be answered may have some merit in study. Sometimes, as they say, the journey can be as rewarding as the destination. Chewing over even insoluble problems can provide a kind of exercise for the mind and better train it for those ones which can be solved. In many senses, answers to unanswerable questions are a mirror of the answerer - how and why a person comes to a conclusion can say a lot about them. And don't we all need to look in a mirror from time to time?

For the record, I dispute your assertion that the goal of philosophy is to discuss instead of answer. Once a question is definitively answered, there is little need for anyone to discuss it except for the purpose of education and review. What does that leave? Those questions without definitive answers that DO require a lot of argumentation to support. But what each philosopher seeks in turn is to produce that next definitive argument and end his particular question as a subject of discussion forever. The good ones seek clarity (answers) and not obfuscation (discussion).

Of course, there are plenty of bad ones out there too...

Answer 2

confident, by way of fact this isn't any longer available to comprehend whether or no longer they're competently responded or no longer, or whether the questions themselves make any experience. This has a tendency to offer upward push to 'ethical relativism', ie. the moral base differences to suite the schedule of whichever authority is in fee on the time. ethical values grow to be a count of opinion, extremely than a given. Human form has a genius for having the flexibility to justify surprisingly much something. If ethical values have been derived from 'Christian Doctrine', eg the 'Ten Commandments', then this might supply, for believers, a ethical compass/template, which may be fastened, and not concern to the uncertainties and manipulations of Philosophy. playstation . i'm no longer making any fee judgements right here. purely comparing the two methods to creating ethical values.

Answer 3

There is always agreement--somewhere. Hegel believed Kant. Marx believed Hegel. Lenin believed Marx.
Augustine believed Plato. That led to the Dark Ages.
Ayn Rand believed Aristotle. That led to her being cast, before "political correctness" had a name, as being "hateful." But Thomas Aquinas believed Aristotle, and that led to the Enlightenment. The Cato Institute, The Ayn Rand Institute, The Center for Objectivist Studies, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie know "enlightenment" when they see it--wish those two luck getting "Atlas Shrugged" made. Can you see Pitt as John Galt? Jolie will be awsome as Dagney Taggart.
Most readers revere the "benign existentialism" of Albert Camus. Who can deny "The Plague" is a great novel? "The Rebel" is a thoughtful work on philosophical rebellion.
Kant is the most influential philosopher; also the most confusing and the most irrational. He is responsible for more confusion in philosophy than Socrates who comes in second. But many take him "at his word," "on faith," and have no idea what they are agreeing to because one cannot understand the irrational--take simply take it on "faith."
But Rand comes in second in being influential--influential to people who take nothing on faith and everything on reason. She has millions of devoted fans around the world, and even more critics who are too "politically correct" to accept that she gave Aristotle back to the twentieth century the way Aquinas gave him back to the middle ages.

Answer 4

"philosophy aims to discuss the question"
DISCUSSION, is the critical option.
Discussion, is not the simple To or Fro, the Up or Down, the Here or There.
Discussion, is the creation of legitimate argument.
Discussion, provides substantiated reasons to endorse that angle of the Discussion.
Discussion, that can be THEORETICAL or FACTUAL..

Answer 5

Philosophy (philsophic questions) is indispensable for understanding other disciplines. Many important questions about a discipline, such as the nature of its concepts and its relation to other disciplines, do not belong to that discipline, are not usually pursued in it, and are philosophical in nature. Philosophy of science, for instance, is needed to supplement the understanding of the natural and social sciences which one derives from scientific work itself. Philosophy of literature and philosophy of history are of similar value in understanding the humanities, and philosophy of art is important in understanding the arts. Philosophy is, moreover, essential in assessing the various standards of evidence used by other disciplines. Since all fields of knowledge employ reasoning and must set standards of evidence, logic and epistemology have a general bearing on all these fields.

Answer 6

Philosophy is the Elephant,
from the story "Blind Men and an Elephant"
they can not see it, each perceived a different part of it, and interpreted it to be wholly that. they then started to argue about its true nature.

just because you cant see it, does not mean it not important.

Answer 7

Questions without definitive answers are the most fascinating to me. It's self-exploration: By trying to answer, we learn about ourselves. And it's interesting how our answers change over time.

Or maybe we're asking the wrong questions.

Answer 8

Yes it's good exercise for the brain, and a chance to understand and empathise with someone who has a different view to you.

Answer 9

yes, because you discuss it to find different ideas that you didn't think of yourself. And it's possible to find an answer that suits you.

Answer 10

Truth is beauty...
Many answers produce a world with colour, even spurning new questions.