Will philosophy ultimately only lead back to the ordinary, making

Deep questions will never be answered though

>>489518
If you knew the thing about philosophy you would know that those questions cannot be universally answered. You can only answer them for yourself.
Nothing will happen to you if you do

>>489528
I think if the deep questions can't be answered or not doesn't really matter. What seems to matter is what we'd if we imagine for a second we could and then presume we did. What would we do with it?

>>489540
We would see the ordinary as in-ordinary.
A massive paradigm shift in how our senses take in the world around us.

>>489518
You are enamored by a deterministic, linearly temporal view that pretends that we will one day sure up the epistemic gap. Obviously that will never happen.

We will never figure out the answers, but we will always try, and there is beauty and value in that. A healthy life is basically trying to obtain something unobtainable, and being conscious and content with that. Rest comes with death.

File: 2.jpg (130KB, 960x849px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 960x849px

>>489960
>>489540
>>489528
>>489522
Modernists pls go.

>>490066
>seriously thinking that philosophy, which can be generally defined as interrogating culture's fundamental assumptions, is something that can one day be "resolved"
Are you a literal child?

>>490069
It was resolved
They all turned out to be problems of language

>>490072
>criticizes modernity
>goes full baudrillard
The fact that it's a problem of language is exactly why it can never be resolved, at least not in the way OP articulates it

>>490088
>full baudrillard
Fucking ver$o, can't make wittgenstein jokes cuz of them

>>489518
the ordinary is the only place where philosophy matters. if you can't live philosophy then what is the point?

>>490096
>implying budrillard didn't claim that signs and signals pervert the material truth they copy until all truth is severed and those simulacrum exist only so much as they relate to other simulacrum, binding us to live in a hyperreality where all meaning is simply simulated by language
>implying that isn't also pretty accurate
>implying that doesn't prove my point