The Instigator
gata2008
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
qwerty15ster
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

what is the purpose of philosophy?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,094 times Debate No: 1467
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (7)

 

gata2008

Pro

The act of posing a question always presupposes the existence of its answer whether that answer is stable and totalizing or constantly static and playful. Even when posing a question to which there is no answer, the answer is presupposed as having no answer which is an answer in and of itself. This is because the question is always precedent to something else. The question is always a means but not an end, and even where it is an end, it remains also a means to that non-end. Thus questions have purpose as a means to an end, or non-end.
But this does not explain the purpose of the inquiry. What is the ultimate reason for, purpose, or raison d'etre, of the philosophical question? As the heirs of post-structuralism, we are forced to accept that reality, and thus the answers to philosophical inquiries, are never fully totalizing, singular, complete, or definite. Does our philosophical inheritance then paradoxically obsolete the basis for philosophical inquiry? Without truth as motivation, what does the philosopher seek as the ultimate guide for her inquiry?
Without truth as an end, we are left with little to question. The philosophical tradition has so long relied on the notion of a reality that must be discovered. The ontological trajectory has reached a point, however, where the only thing that is real is the fact that reality is not in fact real. What then is the ultimate goal of philosophy?
qwerty15ster

Con

So first and foremost, I would have to agree with the comment below, you must first take a side for this to be a debate. Which you have not done. Furthermore, the way you have phrased this topic is terrible for debate. There are literally thousands of ways to debate this. You have left the debate way too open. But whatev, we shall try this anyway.

Let me first begin by explaining how you bite your own criticism of philosophy. You start off in your first paragraph by saying that question presupposes an answer, whether it be rock solid and true, up to debate or always fluctuating, sweet I grant you this. However you go on in your second paragraph to say that no answer is ever completely true. "The ontological trajectory has reached a point, however, where the only thing that is real is the fact that reality is not in fact real." You then go on to finish your argument with a the question of the round (notice not taking a side on it, merely asking the question again) So you seem to argue that asking questions is pointless because the answer (reality) does not exist, however you finish by asking a question, how does that make sense?

You say "The question is always a means but not an end, and even where it is an end, it remains also a means to that non-end. Thus questions have purpose as a means to an end, or non-end.
But this does not explain the purpose of the inquiry. What is the ultimate reason for, purpose, or raison d'etre, of the philosophical question?

You have already answered that purpose for the question, the ends. We ask something to know where it will end up. "Where is the coffee shop?" I grant you that a coffee must exist for me to even ask that question, however the reason for asking the question in the first place is so I know in the end, where the coffee shop is. The end is the reason for the question. We ask philosophical questions for the ends they provide. I want to know the answer to life, the universe, and everything.... 42.... that was the end... With that, lets move on to your second paragraph where you attack the ends themselves.

In your second paragraph, you seem to argue that the answers suck because reality doesnt exist. I disagree, reality exists however it is usually subjective. there are very few universal truths for mankind. However, when we go on a person by person basis, we find truths for themselves. To some, objectivism may be the way to live their life, to others Christianity, and for some, Buddhism. Just because they are not universally followed does not mean they aren't true. They are true for the followers they do have.

With that, I'll give you a summary which will answer the topic we are supposedly debating. The purpose of philosophy is to ask questions whether they be about oneself, the world, or humanity in general. And as you said, there is usually an ends, or an answer to the questions. Thus, the purpose of philosophy is for mankind to figure out what he doesnt understand. And seeing as I am the only one who has taken a stance on this issue so far, I win!!!!
Debate Round No. 1
gata2008

Pro

gata2008 forfeited this round.
qwerty15ster

Con

qwerty15ster forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
gata2008

Pro

gata2008 forfeited this round.
qwerty15ster

Con

Well this was fun anyway. I hope that you will vote for me seeing as I am the only one to take a stance in this debate, and my opponent dropped everything I brought up.
Debate Round No. 3
gata2008

Pro

gata2008 forfeited this round.
qwerty15ster

Con

Extend everything that I said that my opponent dropped. I have explained the purpose of philosophy and actually taken a stance on this topic. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
All args dropped. Must vote for Qwerty15ster on lack of refutation. Nice hitchhikers reference.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 9 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Not sure this is exactly a "debate" per se - more like a dialog. You have to take a position before someone can debate you. I believe it is Kant that has a fairly detailed reasoning for the purpose of philosophy at the beginning of his "Critique of Reason."
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Crust89 9 years ago
Crust89
gata2008qwerty15sterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
gata2008qwerty15sterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by mrqwerty 9 years ago
mrqwerty
gata2008qwerty15sterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
gata2008qwerty15sterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by HempforVictory 9 years ago
HempforVictory
gata2008qwerty15sterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
gata2008qwerty15sterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by qwerty15ster 9 years ago
qwerty15ster
gata2008qwerty15sterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03