Name all the Big Questions

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Philosophers have long been fond of making really brief lists of all the big questions that seem to underlie our experience as people, which stubbornly elude any definite answer, such that any claims at any definite answer remain controversial.

Which ones would be on your list (5 or fewer)?

Mine are variations on Kant's 3:

1. What is 'God'?
2. What is 'freedom'?
3. What are we?

 

[azzazza !?]

What is 'meaning'? (both linguistic and otherwise)
what is language?

 

[Portillo]

Who are we
Why are we here
Where are we going.

Or alternatively;

Ow that hurts
Why are you doing this to me
Please, let me die.

 

[Pythagoras]

What is 'meaning'? (both linguistic and otherwise)
what is language?

Nice short list but a bit too logical-positivist for me. I'd have

1. What is the ontological nature of God and can language be used to describe it?
2. What is consciousness?
3. Are perception and noumena alike in any way?
4. What is the ultimate Truth, and can we ever know it?.

All of them are probably reductable to Q 4.

MENS AGITAT MOLEM

 

[yougene]

Who?
What?
When?
Where?
How?
Why?

 

[Coolio]

Why question anything?

 

[Mjäll]

What is being?
Why do this instead of that?

 

[Pythagoras]

Why question anything?

So we can pose questions like yours

 

[capstone]

What is the purpose of existence?

What's the unified theory?

42?

 

[bagochina]

When am I going to find the love of my life?
What are going to be the prerequisites for my death?

Those are the questions that I would like to know the answers to, kinda.

Peace,
Seedless

 

[halogenic]

what is reality

 

[swilow]

What is black, white and red all over?

SERIOUS-

Does reality exist externally, or is it only something that can be observed gven the right apparatus (ie. brain), and therefore, an internal structure and thence not actually real? Or is it both?

 

[azzazza !?]

Nice short list but a bit too logical-positivist for me. I'd have

me? a logical positivist? thats funny.
with 'meaning i primarily meant lived/living meaning, as in, 'what gives ones life 'meaning'?'and how does this 'work' (ontologically speaking). more in the sense of 'the 'language' of Being' itself. logical positivism will never capture the essence of language or meaning; not in the least because it is both. unless it starts accepting paradoxes, that is.

 

[Pythagoras]

me? a logical positivist? thats funny.
with 'meaning i primarily meant lived/living meaning, as in, 'what gives ones life 'meaning'?'and how does this 'work' (ontologically speaking). more in the sense of 'the 'language' of Being' itself. logical positivism will never capture the essence of language or meaning; not in the least because it is both.

Sorry, I took your 1st question as referring to linguistic meaning, and the second as the structurte of language, and therefore its limiting function on what constitutes a valid question of philosophical enquiry, thus metaphysical and ontological statements are seen as meaningless.

I took your 'meaning' as definition, not in the teleological sense. The essence of language is also of primary concern, by deconstructing language following Wittgenstein logical positivism could be said to have been seeking its essence by restricting it the expression of normative empirical enquiry. They sought to conclude philosophy, solving many a paradox through their understanding of the confusion of language, and meta-language, creating a philosophy of what was meaningful, and what was meaningless - I hope this explains why I found your questions resonating with logical positivism.

Apologies if I misunderstood but the lexical ambiguity of words like 'meaning' (ather than 'telos) and 'what is' instead of a stricter ontic statement.

I hope you can see why I might have misunderstood

 

[toa$t]

 

[Pythagoras]

Very clever.

 

[toa$t]

i actually don't get the CS Lewis one though.

more seriously, I think that ethics often gets short shrift when people start talking about the 'big questions' (unless by 'what is god?' you are asking 'what is the good?'). from a pragmatic perspective, 'what is the good' and 'what does it mean to be a good person' are far 'bigger' questions than any of that metaphysics business.

 

[Pythagoras]

You are quite right to point to ethics, but I categorise this in both the ontic nature of God (Eudaimonia is included in this for me), and what is the Truth answers the question of relativistic vs absolutist ethical models.
\you're right out pragmatisms concerns, but other 'philosophies' run with the primacy of metaphysical/ontological/epistemological questions as these underpin what can be said about morality, virtue ethics, deontology etc.

 

[alasdairm]

1. what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?
2. can god microwave a burrito so hot that even he can't eat it?
3. what is the sound of one hand clapping?
4. what is the answer to this question?

alasdair

 

[azzazza !?]

don't worry i can see why you thought as such, i was surprised because my other posts around here are usually nothing but digging out paradoxes. meaningless yes, but not without content, to put it in Carnaps words. the essence of meaning is meaningless.