Discussion what unanswered questions are there in philosophy?

[pyx]

do you think there are unanswered questions philosophy has yet to grasp? will these questions be subsumed by other fields, such as physics? in particular, what are they?

 

[SmallKoy]

There are so many questions philosophy hasn't answered and can't answer. Plenty of which are talked about on this forum; such as the metaphysical. Our purpose, why are we here, what is the greater meaning of life... Etc.

 

[Alexei_Kirillov]

There are no questions philosophy has answered to begin with.

 

[pyx]

There are no questions philosophy has answered to begin with.

philosophy seems to be better at raising questions than answering them. having said that, i think there are domain-specific problems in the field that have been raised and subsequently answered in the past, though the problems i refer to are purely analytic, so they might be criticised due to their apparent lack of applicability

 

[Forever Sleep]

I remember getting a book out from the library in my late teens- 'Philosophy for beginners' type of thing. I thought it was time to figure out the meaning of life. You can imagine my disappointment when all it really said was- these big questions exist- Is there a God? Where did we come from? What is the meaning of life? Where do we go when we die? etc. etc. Then, it cited a few eminent philosophers and what they thought about it all but, I felt so deflated when it offered no conclusions. Like- I'm fully aware these questions exist! That's why I'm wasting my time (evidently) reading this book- I want the answers! Probably naive of me to think there were answers... I wonder if we'll ever know the answers. I always hoped all would be revealed when we die but if there's nothing afterwards, I guess we won't! Oh well, we won't have a brain to worry about it then.

 

[BoulderSoWhat]

This reminds me of that one time Descartes had acquired absolute certainty and irrefutable knowledge of all the truths about reality and existence, except when he didn't know for certain whether he was thinking and therefore existing. That was the last unanswered question in philosophy.

Or wait was it the other way around, now I can't remember, someone help pls

 

[ms_beaverhousen]

What questions has philosophy ever answered???

 

[Pluto]

 

[albert_camus]

Do properties really exist, are they just a man-made construct, do they only exist if there is someone who perceives them or do they exist independently of an observer?
Is there an objective morality?

 

[SilentSadness]

That's the wrong question. Philosophy is about coming to terms with not knowing the reason or purpose of anything during your time in this void of despair. Humans know nothing, they are ultimately powerless.

 

[John Kramer]

Absolutely, there are unanswered questions in philosophy—it thrives on the unknown. Philosophy is less about "solving" questions and more about examining their implications and frameworks. Sure, some philosophical questions, like the nature of time or consciousness, might overlap with fields like physics or neuroscience, but that doesn't mean philosophy gets subsumed. Instead, it complements those fields by providing critical perspectives on their methods and assumptions.

 

[tera645]

Why is there something rather than nothing? This is philosophy and science too. But don't think about this question or you will go crazy.

 

[Trex]

Philosophy is more of believing a hypothesis rather than finding answers which is acceptable by all.

 

[Kornous]

The thing is that there are philosophers of "science" - who promote ideas of methods of knowing the world and the universe, try to understand the structure of things, and, objectively, through experiments, logic, facts - prove it. Here it is necessary to keep in mind what is "objectivity" and what is "subjectivity". Objectivity is a fact that does not depend on a person, but which he can know. Subjectivity is the expression of ideas about the world around a person (his point of view).
In order to talk further, it is necessary to understand in general what a "philosopher" is. This is a person engaged in the development of questions of the worldview RELATIVELY TO A MAN. This is also a person trying to find the "truth".
I apologize, but I really need to explain what "truth" is. Truth is an adequate reflection of reality in the consciousness of a person, which is expressed in knowledge corresponding to its subject. So: based on all that has been said, I think that people like Newton, Descartes, Pythagoras, Tesla are real philosophers; those who tried to find this "truth", finding the inviolable rules of nature, and building their ideology from them (in this case, they have the right to do so, since they discovered fundamental laws, analyzed them, conducted experiments and came to conclusions). There are also "philosophers for fun" (sorry if I expressed myself harshly, but this is exactly my idea of them) - to them I include, for example, Goethe, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard. These are philosophers who, based on THEIR worldview, logically or in other ways, tried to pass off THEIR opinion as the truth. The problem is that:
1) These philosophers tried to pass off their own view of the world as the truth, as if not understanding that each person perceives the world in their own way: each has their own genetics, their own upbringing, environment, cases that influenced them. These philosophers tried to convince themselves that their opinion was correct by proving it to others, and the measure of their "correctness" was only the acceptance or rejection of their ideas by other people. This is a natural dependence on society, just like drug addiction. A person cannot cope with his inner world on his own, which is why he tries to find the truth in the support of others. Among such philosophers, I would like to highlight Schopenhauer, since he was, in fact, an "incel" of the 18-19th centuries. Even for his time, he was short, not handsome in face, narrow-shouldered, and had a lot of complexes about this. If you look at his biography, he was also a person of a subtle soul and took everything very seriously. And the death of his father affected him in the worst way, and the refusals of women, from which he tried to devalue the relationship and say that this is an "animal" and is not decent for a normal person (not because it is logically justified - but because it is easier for him to create a new illusion than to come to terms with himself). Because of this, for him the world is pain and suffering (surely the visitors of this forum love his ideas (probably)). I am not saying that this is bad - but such a situation literally "eats" a person from the inside, makes his life hell.

It should also be added that a person does not live by logic, but by emotions and feelings, therefore, if you answer the author's question: "Do you think that there are questions that philosophy has yet to answer its questions?" - they answer these questions exactly as a person perceives life. If his hormones, neurotransmitters and other forces that affect the perception of the world are in order, he will not have questions. He will simply live and rejoice.
Just now I noticed that I seem to have gone completely off topic. My apologies. Everything is mixed up in my head.