>>11304798I was being crotchety.
There is some value to philosophy, but it is mainly in its ability to humble you. While it produces nothing of value, what it does produce are opinions. Considering one of the 'assuming x then y' type arguments you are free to absolutely believe x, you dont need to question or be skeptical about it at all, and this gives you license to develop certain absolute assertions about y. You can go along being very full of yourself and certain that, having spent hours thinking about it, you have covered every possible consideration.
And then some asshole comes and says a sentence or two you did not consider and you are instantly convinced your idea was completely wrong.
This experience is beneficial i think.
You can get it in theology too.
Take this: Imiaslavie.
An orthodox schemamonk (the highest rank of monk) developed the idea. Now he takes platos realm of forms as a given. He postulates that 'god', as in the word, the name, is in fact god. He argues that as god created everything, anything that existed before god must also be god, and for god to physically exist, the form of god, the name or idea of it, must have existed prior (in the absence of time there can still be sequence).
So here we have this monk who has decided that the name 'god' is in fact god. He developed some followers.
Now i both reject the realm of forms, and quite like such audacious bold claims, and so i adopted this position easily as it both let me illustrate the absurdity of plato and the uselessness of philosophy and theology. "God" must in fact be "god".
Unfortunately there exists more than one monk. Some other monks disagreed with this. They pointed out that if this were true, then 'the universe' as an idea would also have to exist before the universe, and if everything before the universe must be god, then 'the universe' is also god, and if the idea of the universe is god, then the resulting real universe must be god too! And this is pantheism and heresy.
