15 Answers

  1. Here, of course, we can only assume, because only you can determine the real cause yourself. You may have fallen into the cognitive trap of naive realism. This is when it seems obvious that only what a normal person perceives with the help of their senses under normal conditions is real, as well as everything that an authority in the face of the scientific community knows about the sensually perceived world. I won't explain why this is false just yet, because maybe that's not what the question is about.

    UPD.: Okay, I'll explain. First, the famous twentieth-century philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote quite aptly about this:

    We all start with “naive realism,” i.e., the doctrine that all things are exactly what we see. We think the grass is green, the rocks are hard, and the snow is cold. But physics assures us that the greenness of grass, the hardness of stone, and the cold snow are not the greenness, hardness, or cold that we are familiar with from our own experience, but something very different. The observer, when he thinks that he sees a stone, in fact, according to physics, observes the effects associated with the impact of the stone on him. Thus, we see that science is at war with itself: striving to be objective with all her might, she finds herself immersed in subjectivism against her will. Naive realism leads to physics, and physics, if true, shows that naive realism is false. So if naive realism is true, then it is false. Therefore, it is false.

    But if you don't find these arguments convincing enough, I can add the following arguments. It is believed that naive realism harms a healthy psychology of cognition, defending what is based on personal human experience and common sense. For example, this is why it was so difficult to overcome the idea that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and not vice versa. If you look at the history of the issue, you will see that this was the problem of the stability of Pliny's system, and not at all in religious beliefs, as for some reason it is commonly believed.

    Finally, and third, the scientific community is not what naive realism thinks it is. From his point of view, the scientific community has a single, clearly formulated answer to all ideological questions. In fact, science has no answer to many questions at all (for example, why it is necessary to observe morality or what will happen to a person's consciousness after death), and the scientific community is extremely far from a single consolidated position on a lot of important issues (especially with regard to ancient history).

    A large psychological dictionary also says that in science, naive realism leads to dogmatism and uncritical hypostasis (that is, inflating the significance) of theoretical concepts.

  2. There may be two reasons for this:

    • You have solved these questions for yourself and know the exact answer. How do doctors know the answer when people on the web discuss traditional ways to treat acute respiratory viral infections?

    • It's not the questions themselves that seem stupid to you, but the people who raise them.

    And you are ashamed to admit to yourself that you are annoyed by not very wise people, but at the same time … be ashamed of your anger at people and maybe even hope to get over it.

    And what annoys you is that you can't handle it.

  3. A frank question requires a frank answer. My incomparable wife about 10 years ago, trying to read something from ” Isis Unveiled “or, even worse,” The Secret Doctrine ” stated – all this is nonsense of a gray mare.

    But as time went on, she became interested in some esoteric and healing practices.

    And now she had learned to understand an order of magnitude more than before. Not because she was forced into it, but for the reason that she herself became interested, matured.

  4. Being a biorobot, a person deceives himself with pragmatic goals and meanings, not wanting to think about the reason for the rake that he steps on, and not finding answers here. And the real reasons are THERE, in the “abstract”. You really need to get tired of the rake, and then you will want to become stupid, because this means that you will want to break your limitations, which gave rise to mistakes …

  5. Because it is a philosophy that makes you react emotionally to a problem, but does not provide a solution to this problem, which requires practical application techniques, and not useless conversations.

  6. My friend, I have exactly the same problem. I explain it this way: they are all infinitely far from real life.�

    let's say that in a philosophical conversation we proved that Kant's categorical imperative is one of the basic rules of life.
    And then what? Life won't turn upside down, the planet won't turn square, and Padik will still be pissed.

  7. Maybe because you unconsciously consider yourself immortal and go through life without thinking about what is its basis…?And this is exactly what you listed.Your reality is far removed from questions related to philosophy, religion, and attempts to comprehend the reality of death and the miracle of life. You just live and do not consider it necessary to think about these issues ,because there is so much time and it is spent on completely different things – life,environment,everyday problems…As a rule, a person thinks about everything you have listed, when there are changes in his life, when he suddenly understands absolutely clearly that TIME is RUNNING OUT…it is not shagreen leather and it is impossible to stretch it…and then these stupid conversations suddenly become vital, because a person is looking for answers to questions that previously did not bother him at all…he doesn't want to go into oblivion and disappear into eternity when HIS time comes ,as if he didn't exist at all. And then he understands that the truth is born precisely in such conversations, which very simply explain that no one from this blessed planet goes anywhere…everyone stays here and becomes a part of it…and then they will become part of the stars or what time and those higher forces will make them,on which everything that exists in the vast expanses of the Great Cosmos depends.But one day your atoms will come together again, and the person they form will live.For nothing and no one disappears and does not dissolve in time and space forever.Here's something like that…)

  8. Because they're usually started by people who aren't smart enough. In fact, the questions of life and death, good and evil are extremely interesting and not boring at all. But arguments about religion and philosophy are usually completely uninteresting

  9. Because you can say anything, but it's still unverifiable. The only thing that needs to be monitored is that there are no verifiable statements and hypotheses in what is said.And then you can be considered very smart!

  10. There is an observation in philosophy: like-for-like. It just fits your question:
    stupid (person) – stupid (question).
    At least start reading fairy tales, and you won't even be a kid.

  11. I wanted to add something to the answer above�

    if you need to talk about “morality,” here's ” psychology and sociology,”

    to the question of what will happen after death, science has a very precise answer-nothing, the energy will dissipate, it may not be easy to realize, like, for example, the “nothing” that once was, so it is logical to try to explain the “incomprehensible” in the same religion

    what shapes our life (perception about it) is essentially an amazing mechanism of interaction between body cells, which is why it can be analyzed, this is the science of neuropsychology, physics – the language of the universe, everything is built according to its laws and beyond our small planet, but philosophical questions are created for the person himself, for his answers to himself, so the thoughts that come during ‘those very ” conversations are just infantilism, it will definitely fall off by itself when understanding comes and you don't have to dismiss what you need to pass through yourself, realize from all sides, and

    in any case, what is in your head is a manifestation of your own feelings, do not leave them just to exist, more precisely, than you yourself no one will answer such a question, you can only direct

  12. There can be two answers:

    1. You have never tried to express or formulate any of your thoughts or at least a point of view related to these topics. Try it and you will understand how difficult it is, how many semantic conventions and compromises you have to make in order to be understood at least a little. These compromises and conventions you feel as – “stupidity”, that is, unreliability, falsity.�

    2. You are a very talented person who can easily talk about philosophical topics, and you feel this potential on the example of the poor reasoning of others in this topic. But here, too, it is important to understand, you feel this when you read the rants of some schoolboy who has the “wit” to criticize Nietzsche, but does not have the wit to mix up chick-paw-wow with Natasha from the neighboring dorm, or Nietzsche himself.

    ps I am ready to speculate further if the author answers.

  13. Answering the question “Why do conversations about life, death, religion, and philosophy always seem so silly to me?as is, that is, I answer exactly what is being asked, and as it is being asked. So please don't be offended 🙂

    1. Because they (such conversations) are really stupid (this often happens). You are smarter than these conversations: Your level of understanding of life, death, religion, and philosophy is much higher than that of the participants in these “stupid conversations”.�

    2. Such a high level of understanding of such “life-meaning”, “ultimate”, “last” issues is impossible without a high level of general human culture (intellectual, spiritual, moral, etc.). That is, being aware of your real intellectual superiority over others, you simultaneously realize that as a moral (at least – educated) being you have no right to publicly emphasize this superiority.

    3. By asking your question publicly in a form that clearly contains a negative assessment of others (and indirectly-a high self-assessment), you refute the assumption contained in paragraph 2, and therefore the statement based on it from paragraph 1. Therefore

    4. It is you who are not yet ready for such topics: you are not ready for serious conversations on the topics of life, death, religion, philosophy, because there is little that you can compare these questions from your own experience. The experience here is not a collection of events that have happened to you, but rather a serious reflection on at least some of these events, the lessons learned from them.

    5. A person may not really be interested in talking about topics that they can't fully participate in. At the same time, in relation to professional topics where incompetence is easily detected, he is more likely to admit that he is not able to participate in such conversations at an adequate level: “this is not my thing”, “I am not interested in it” , etc. Egoism is more difficult to hide in generally significant humanitarian topics such as “life, death, religion, philosophy”, so often one's own weakness is sublimated into negative assessments of others.

    6. To understand and recognize this limitation is to take a step towards overcoming it. “I know I don't know anything,” Socrates said, ” others don't even know that!” Good luck! 🙂

  14. Perhaps for the same reason that I find it silly to talk about sales or slow sales.�

    I'll tell you a little story. 2 years ago, I was preparing for a job at a research institute. And once, in a conversation with her lover, she told me that “my science means nothing”, and “her science is life”. To say that I had a nuclear bamboleio at that moment is an understatement. Naturally, we didn't last long together. Find the moral yourself.

  15. it's one of two things – either they are really stupid or you haven't grown up to these things. I don't want to offend you, but for Sharikov, the theater was stupid – so you need to consider all options. In general, the question of love and hate, life and death, the meaning and purpose of being – these are so-called eternal questions and have never been considered stupid, except for complete atheists and atheists. For example, Freud believed that the purpose and meaning of people ( at least hidden) is only to eat, kill and copulate, and said that if a person becomes interested in the meaning of life or its value, it means that he is sick. But there were a minority of people like Freud.

Leave a Reply