The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The overall purpose of philosophical argument should be to answer the question of how best to live

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/8/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 509 times Debate No: 62885
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Philosophy over time has rarely dealt with the most important question. How do we live best in this lifetime? Philosophical content and argument is too oftentimes tied up in semantics and questions that have no bearing on our lives. It's not related to the common man and has therefore lost perspective on what the purpose of philosophy should be.


I disagree.

Philosophy is intended to reach an understanding of the Universe, not how to engage in it.

The means by which one would come to answer the question, "How to best live one's life." Is not a philosophy. There is no philosophical aspects behind discerning how to Live correctly.

Philosophy is reviewing of knowledge.

this should be a pleasure.
Debate Round No. 1


Icebox415 forfeited this round.


How to live ones life when restrained by philosophy becomes problematic.

Jesus Christ says, "The law creates sin."

When confined one seeks to escape. When bored one seeks new thrills.

Philosophically the actual advantage to living ones life is not what is taken into consideration, the less obvious aspects of those things are examined.

Such as,
Philosophically one does not come to the conclusion it is best to exercise, that is fact, but philosophically we determine the benefits to such a thing are preventing incapacity and enabling ourselves for future events, since the actual joy and experience is debatably not worth it. This is proven with various examples from reality, including my friends, and depressed people. However the philosophical aspects which are not concrete, because they are philosophy remain the same.

Through this we can argue that Pro is correct also, and that philosophy is used to determine a more clear path. That through philosophy we can open the right doors by examining and closing the wrong ones to make the right decision easier.
However, Pro can also be concluded to be wrong because he seems to indicate that philosophy is not the function of determining a better way to examine life: Pro, " -argument "should" be to answer- " + " How do we live best in this lifetime "

The solution is this, Philosophy has dealt with how we live best in this lifetime, we avoid things and present ourselves with opportunities. So even as my debate is to argue that Philosophy is not for the purpose of prescribing actions, Pro is somewhat wrong in the grammatical structure of the debate. However, this debate is clearly given over to the discrimination of the voters { I may believe myself, but that does not make me right. Being right makes one right. ]

With one last consideration. Telling one to not poop in the water is not philosophy, it is reason or science. To tell one to not cut the grass with non-renewable resources is not philosophy, it is reason and logic. To tell someone to exercise is not philosophy, because it is More close minded than open, and does not apply to all conditions. Telling someone to do something, is rarely a philosophical statement..
However one can state philosophically that being Chaste is a great happiness. As Krishna, said to Arjuna the Prince of an Indian Country, "You are the chastiest of warriors. You are my friend." and in this we see that the entire philosophy of Hinduism, which is monotheist through Krishna who is the All-mighty God-head, who Is, is a philosophy of humility and chastity, which is as best an answer which is possible to answer the question, "How to bets live ones life."
Debate Round No. 2


It seems to me that your argument is dealing with a definition of philosophy that doesn't apply to the definition that actually exists. The word philosophy itself originated from ancient Greece and literally means the "love of wisdom."

You can argue that not "pooping in the water supply" is not philosophy and that it is instead science... but it would appear that because reason/science dictate that pooping in the water supply is bad for sanitation and health, that it is wise to not poop in the water supply. The love of this knowledge is thus philosophy. In ancient times, the fields of science and philosophy were intertwined and studied together with one another. There wasn't the separation in fields that exist today.

Nearly everything that we do in this life is concerned with how we live. Do we go exercise or sit around and watch television? What kind of work do we want to do to make money so that we can live? How much sleep do we need to get tonight to function effectively tomorrow? What should we eat for dinner such that we can be healthy and give our bodies what we need? While all of these questions deal with different issues, they all deal with how we live. Our lives themselves consist of everything ranging from the health of our bodies, the status of our families, our social lives, our education and work, and the habits we form.

In claiming that "there is no philosophical aspect (improper grammar) behind discerning how to Live (I don't understand why this was capitalized) correctly," is the same thing as saying that there is no wisdom to be learned and loved about learning how to live correctly.

It is also previously argued that "philosophically one does not come to the conclusion it is best to exercise, that is fact..." This is simply not true. It is true that it is a fact that it is better to exercise and this has been scientifically proven. However, science and philosophy are not mutually exclusive. Again, philosophy itself is merely the love of wisdom. Wisdom can be obtained through many different means but when one educates himself/herself with the knowledge that it is healthier to exercise than to not... it becomes obvious to that individual that it is wiser to exercise. This wisdom that is obtained through obtaining said knowledge is very much philosophy.

However, areas of philosophy such as skepticism do not play the same role. Questioning whether the couch we are sitting on, the football we are trying to catch, or the bus that is speeding toward us are real do not yield definitive answers. They cannot reach definitive answers because every answer we reach, we can also be skeptical of. Oftentimes, the answers we reach lead to a deadening of wisdom rather than an increase in wisdom.

A good example of this is with the existence of our physical bodies. If we are skeptical as to our own bodies existence, we do not feel it as necessary or wise to take care of those bodies. This leads to a decrease in health and fitness which cause a physiological change in our bodies. This thus leads to a decrease in the goodness of our lives. I believe it is unwise to pursue questions that cannot increase our knowledge, but lead to a decrease in how well we live our lives. Thus, skepticism is an unwise pursuit in philosophy. It causes us to question and prevent ourselves from acting in such ways that are wise for us.

Any true pursuit of knowledge or wisdom should enhance our lives. Such fields could considered ethics because of how the wisdom we obtain by the knowledge of this field causes us to live and treat one another better. Existentialism is another sect of philosophy that is beneficial by this train of thought because it stresses the existence of free will which causes individuals to "act" as if they have free will. This causes individuals to take their own actions, fates, and lives into their own hands. This is beneficial to the individuals lives, and thus, wise. The ways in which Socrates questioned individuals' viewpoints, the ways they thought, and the ways they lived was another valid pursuit of wisdom. This caused people to question their own lives which brings into light the ways in which they could be living better and is thus, wisdom.

Any pursuit of knowledge that does not cause the individual pursuing the knowledge to live better in some sense is not philosophy. It does not increase wisdom.


As a final dispute:

Wisdom is Objective. What si right is right, whetehr what is right is known or unknown, the truth remains the truth. IN this way Science and Philosophy are very co-existing. As one is a determined law, and one is an undetermined law.

To subjugate humanity to a law, is as Jesus says, the creation of sin; and Muslims exemplify this perfectly. The reality of wisdom is not tell a person which way to go, but simply lead them on the right paths so that they do not become lost or stumble.

Philosophy, which is the reasonable mind of a man/woman whom loves wisdom, is not for deciding a better path, it has already concluded one. Philosophy is used to help people find their own ways to live life, not to show them what that is.

In this case. I will regrettably remain silent in my abundant examples of how Philosophy has been used throughout the Monotheist Greek empire prior to it's collapse, to illustrate how the negative things are truly negative, and the positive things are most pleasing.
(* As Jesus said, "You cannot know me, nor can you know my Father, for only the Father can know which comes from him, and Only the son can know that which comes from the Father: None can know Chaos, who alone created all things. Until Man subdued the earth as God had prescribed to him; conquering the elements of the universe.*)

It is simply as so.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
I do not believe this****
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
You must mean only Western philosophy. Chinese and Indian philosophy have never been divorced from practical applications.
No votes have been placed for this debate.