what pattern is that?
— Maybe that sometimes in order to have things you must assume their opposites…
Yes, surely all entities must encounter a thought which gives them anguish. I guess the difference comes in the categorisation of them: most thoughts can be pigeonholed into sociology/psychology/law etc. without any thought of the precursors of philosophical ethics and so on. Perhaps that continues to be one of the stigmas of philosophy, and one which the title GPP doesn’t help dissolve - maybe it should be GIP (genuine internal problems). “My existentialism’s giving me gip again today.”
Not directly, I agree, but the structure and effectiveness of language is the single thing upon which all other GPPs revolve, for without some sort of language - private or shared - we can’t even begin to consider the problems. So perhaps the study of language in pursuit of the problems is even more pure philosophically than all the others.
Me? I haven’t had any lasting GPPs. From time to time thoughts struck me that have remained, but I decided when I was 14 that I could fly if I thought hard enough about it, that I’d been conditioned into not being able to think about it, and that was that. I’m not sure if they bother me any more; as Nat said, So it all boils down to Death Anxiety? Angst as Philosophy? On the face of it, it’s not a very compelling idea… Hehe…
But maybe I just don’t spend as much time thinking nowadays.
Roughly around the same time as you think about buying a Volvo, I’d imagine. 
Good exploration. The thing is, most former philosophers were excited by the prospect of looking beyond the fences, realised they couldn’t, and turned back. Most current philosophers stand with their noses pressed to the fence, waiting for some miracle to happen, or some extra sheep to come along and teach them how to jump. Which is the better way of life? Who has the healthier nose?
(more seriously, what are mental stress levels like in philosophers as opposed to non philosophers?)
This bothers me too. Evidently it is so, and therefore the natural evolution of the mind (or: society) does not automatically engage itself in self-doubt (or has auxilary systems which deny further contemplation of the thoughts) and all the other things that bother us. Therefore philosophers are a species unto themselves, and possessing GPP is a structural defect or advantage in the mental evolutionary race. Which one it is, I’m not sure any more. I can argue about the existence of tables in a room until the bar runs dry, but all I’ve really done is got drunk.
Well said Kajun, but I don’t know that I’m quite ready to trade in my anguish and torment for a Volvo. That’s a big step! 
— My angst is worth much more, i am an empty cup seeking out water. I am too curious about too many things to specialize, and philosophy is the most general of studies.
Lately, I’ve become unsettled with the realization that a lot of my beliefs are mostly… gathered from others - I’m not sure what I, myself, have personally developed as an idea or belief.
i’m not sure what I believe, and i’m not sure where to start to figure that out.
with religion, love, drugs, and all other countless topics, I know not where I stand. I sit on the fence, people ask me why I believe something, and I respond with a “I really don’t know”.
I don’t like that at all. It’s bothering me horribly for the past couple days as I came to that realization. I try to narrow the focus down, so I can start somewhere and figure out how I feel about things… but I just don’t know where to start.
what do i do in a situation like this? i feel that every new thing I learn, I could just corrupt myself further… put more ideas into my head that weren’t really my own.
On the other hand, however… if I have analyzed these ideas, or… realized them… and have adopted them into my personal beliefs… are they not my ideas now? Do I not own them now? What?
How do I become capable of considering an idea a belief that I can stand by - without thinking that it’s an undefined belief? How do I know it’s something I truly believe in, and not a spur of the moment tidbit or opinion that I have latched on to?
I’m so lost right now… So confused.
About so many things.
Perfect example - I am 21 years old, virgin by choice. Why? I don’t know. I’ve had my chances. People ask me - “Why Jon? Why are you a virgin? What are you waiting for?”
I don’t know what I’m waiting for - I’m waiting for … something. I’m not sure what that is. I can’t pinpoint it. Maybe someone I know I love and that it won’t be wasted on? But what is wasting virginity? What is virginity besides lack of sex?
I’m just so lost…
John, sir, I have your answer. It is the greatest of all philosophies, saturated in honesty and integrity, and just about the closest you can get to certainty. This, my friend, is skepticism. I see that you are afraid to corrupt your mind and you don’t know what to trust, so don’t trust anything. The heart of skepticism is that you must thoroughly test the validity of everything you bring into your system of beliefs. If it doesn’t hold water, you can’t believe it. In fact, even for the beliefs that you have run through the highest level of scrutiny, you must still hold with a grain of humility, because there is always a degree of certainty that cannot be overcome.
So the key to your dilemma, is in skepticism and this is a wonderful place to begin. Ask questions, and join in discussions, and increase your knowledge. I was much like yourself a few years ago, except that I did not have near the humility that you have (excellent trait). I thought I knew everything, but it was when I came to the realization that I knew nothing, that my quest for truth and understanding began.
Great question to begin your quest. Here are my personal beliefs for you to deconstruct and test. I see it as one of the most wonderful experiences you can have in this world, and even moreso, when had intimately with your life long partner. The way I see it, every time you engage in sexual activity with someone other than your life long partner, you are psychologically devaluing your personal concept of sexuality. Just imagine how wonderful it would be, to experience sex for the first time with your lifelong partner. Besides this, in a relationship where either partner is not a virgin, there is always the wonder of how you compare to the previous. Truthfully the concept of virginity is not one that many have been able to uphold till they find their soul mate. I had my ideals of virginity a few years ago, while all of my friends were out and about having fun, but eventually I gave in to a relationship that I truly believed was the one, but was not. Whether you or anybody actually retains their virginity is not really the main concern, but the level of dignity and respect you hold for the wonder of sex is the greater issue.
Blessed are the meek for they shall inbherit the earth. Lessing said something like, “if God offered truth in one hand and the pursuit of truth in the other i would ask for the pursuit of truth.” I would rather remain ignorant than proclaim a falsehood as truth. So many think they have the truth and desperately defend their paltry reasonings, and there are a few people who retain their humility and intellectual honesty and answer in good conscience, “I don’t know, but let’s find out.”…
In my late teenage years I became obsessed with GPP, right to the point of not being able to stop thinking. Make thoughts grew quicker and quicker so eventually I was not finishing one thought before I started the next.
I had this incredible need to answer just one question.
What is it all about?
The more I answered a question I posed, and had a realization, the more avenues of thought opened up and I leapt to follow them, sometimes I would think in a circle and othertimes, just follow a flow of conciousness.
When it got to the point of trying to stop thinking, I found I could not, even though I was exhasted.
My brain just shut itself down, and when I found myself concious again I was in the local hospital mental ward.
Apparently I had been walking round talking a load of gibberish.
Thinking back now I can remember my unstoppable brain making wild leaps in connecting statements others had made with observations etc. Leading to thinking that, anyone who spoke, even those who spoke as I passed them in the street. made me believe it was relavant to me and I would join in the conversation, uttering mad statements and pointing out to them exactly how there words were connected to mine.
It took a fair few years and other stays in the local metal hosital for me to get a grip on reality as far as I could.
I eventually realised that the question I long most to answer…
What’s it all about?
Will never be answered by me in my life time, but I have come to the conclusion that I should just enjoy the journey of trying to reach the conclusion.
Most of my waking time is spent with GPP, that and T&A lol.
obscure_reality
What makes you think ‘one who knows’ would let on that he knows.
Knowing what he knows, he would know letting others know would only bring him grief.
MentulZen.
Phobos,
Do not dispair!
Although I have many beliefs, not one of them I am a 100% sure of, not even close.
My beliefs are mainly the ideas I like the most.
Very little of my knowledge can I say is true fact. It has all been read or told to me word of mouth, I have not the first hand experience of it.
Alot of things to me seem obvious, but what is obvious is not nesacerialy(sp,I’m tired!) right.
I do like my ability to be able to view things from different perspectives rather than just one fixed point I strongly believe in.
Look at your fence sitting as a gift, and use it to consider each side (or sides).
No where in the rule book does it say that you HAVE to have an opinion.
Gather the facts if you like, then sit back and consider just how foolish we all are…
Would you rather be someone with a fixed view point, never changing, never considering another approach. or would you rather lack conviction of faith and have the oppertunity to experience something new?
As for being a virgin, no problems there, I’m 34 and have only ever slept with 3 1/2 women in my life. Others are amazed when they find this out. (the 1/2 was my only one night stand, was very drunk, so was only really capable of half having sex lol)
I’m perfectly happy with it being this way. I am now with a very special woman. I do not feel that I have missed out. Sex although being wonderful, is not the only thing that can bring pleasure. Don’t sweat it man.
I think your lost becuase you are comparing yourself to those who are so different to you. You are not them, they are not you. Make your own choices and NEVER believe someone when they say you have to.
Hope this helps,
MentulZen.
You have to forgive me,but i’m not familiar with lessing,still,i seemed to recognize that way of thinking from the Ancient Greeks, i don’t have to mention who, do I ? I know you know.
Best Regards,
Rene
—Alas, i only know this one little quote from lessing, sometimes lessing is moore. Socrates was told by the oracle of delphi that none were wiser than he; Socrates (after much thought, i wonder if he entertained delusions of grandeur?) took this to mean that he knew that he was ignorant. Jose Ortega Y Gasset related that he enjoyed problems! necessity is the mother of invention.
My philosophy professor at Auburn University, Dr. William Davis got hooked on philosophy. I have two particular problems, the first is found in Philosophy of Religion, the Problem of Evil. From a philosophical perspective it seems there is no good answer. However, the flip side, from a theological perspective it is simple. My personal challenge is to discover a reasonable account for the philosophical issue. I’ve read David Hume who is the biggest exponent of this problem, and the creator of my small dilemma. My other problem is free will/determinism, currently I am in the process of writing a article for an on-line site addressing “Free will and Morality,” maybe I will be able to reach a more concrete solution. Ha, ha! Any reasonable ideas are welcome. 
Meno stated:
How is it that the problem of evil from a theological perspective is simple?
I have never met two theologians that agreed on the same solution to the problem of evil. In fact, some theolgians I have spoken too actually contradict each other. Shouldn’t be surprising since so many religions differ in so many ways. It appears, Meno, that you are speaking from a side, or a bias. Possibly, you mean Christianity when you say that from a theological perspective the problem of evil is simple. Or maybe not. But from an objective standpoint, looking at all religions, I don’t see how it is a simple perspective.
Furthermore, most theologians will likely separate evil into two categories. Moral evil (evil produced by humans) and natural evil (Aids, Tornadoes, viruses, etc).
I believe this to be an important distinction, especially since they get in each others way in debates of evil in theology.
I would like to hear, before I go on, about why it is you feel it a simple answer from a theolgical perspective, as well, I would like to hear what you think are the problems with the problem of evil from a philosophical perspective.
What’s your take?
Necronomicon! (my favorite evil dude)
“The blind demon Necronomicon sits on the throne of Chaos. It is he who swallows everything, and when in the end he finds the world is nought, he eats himself.”
Necronomicon is mentioned as a sole companion of the ‘Evil One’ after other evil spirits have been conquered: “Then two fiends remain at large, the Evil One and Necronomicon.”
oh, Necronomicon you bad lad. go to bed! they’ll be no dinner for you! 
Hi Gadfly of LLP, the Problem of Evil is simple from a theological perspective, because even though I may suffer with such issues as Asthma and arthritis these are a result of man’s fall. It is the effect of sin in the world and it’s effect on my body. God shall take care of this in the future, until then I rest in His strength. Then for all eternity I shall have perfect body. I know other theologians are confused, probably because of their approach to the Bible. I find the teaching is pretty clear when taken historically and literally.
Meno,
thank you for responding to my question. I have read and considered your post, and I believe we are now ready to open up on the topic. If you will join me on this discourse.
Meno stated:
I’m not sure whether it was your intention or not, but you only mention physical sickness or disease. I’m not sure whether you would be willing to agree that there are many other forms of suffering. Furthermore, I can’t help but see that it appears you are saying that what is evil, is that which makes us suffer. But is evil the ONLY thing that makes us suffer? Often times that which is good for us, makes us suffer because we are not use to it, or for some other reason. Moreover, it is also often the case that we do something EVIL but it doesn’t hurt anyone, or to put it in your words, it doesn’t make anyone else suffer. But I guess you might argue that a person who commits an evil will have sufferage put upon them by God. Hence, although you caused no one else sufferage, God will cause it on you.
Now when you say that Arthritis and Asthma are a result of Man’s fall, I assume you are referring to Adam and Eve, Freewill, and our ability to do Evil. If I am wrong, please elaborate on what you meant. It is at this time that I would like to present to you an argument, no, more of a dilemma, often presented to people with this kind of an argument. The dilemma is called the ‘Euthyphro Dilemma’ after the work presented by Plato, called Euthyphro. The dilemma merely asks us to ask ourselves the following question: “Is that which is right (good), right because God recognizes it to be right - or - is it right because God makes it right and for no other reason?” Hence, if God recognizes it to be right, it would appear that God is limited by that which is right - or that what is right is somehow more powerful than God. If on the other hand, we say that that which is right is right because God makes it right, it would appear that we are left with the law of the jungle. Might is right. Which is to say that that which is right is right because God is more powerful than us. But this doesn’t help our ethical system to understand complex forms of right and wrong. Furthermore, if it is the law of the jungle that we are to apply in reference to God, then it makes for a problem when we focus on natural evil. Since it is hard for us to imagine that after Adam took a bite out of the apple that lions began eating gazels, tornadoes occured, etc.
I personally, would like to know how it is that an apple decides whether Adam and Eve will have freewill. Then I would ask how it is that freewill is passed down through the genes into the rest of human kind. Lastly, I would have an issue with God since he is suppose to be understanding and forgiving and tell him that I think it unfair that our predecessors made a mistake for which they were punished, but how come we are being punished even now, generations down the road when we were not the ones who took a bite out of the apple. It would appear that we should base our ethics upon a system of blame down lineages of bloodlines. Hence, all Germans should be outcasts because of World War II. A British should be outcasts for enslaving Africans. This goes on and on with ALL countries of the world. Hence, not a single one of us should be forgiving to anyone about any one thing. We should all be holding grudges against each other for everything.
Furthermore, Pope John Paul the second has admitted Evolution to be true while also being rationally forced to discount not only the creationist (genesis) story in the Bible but the Adam and Eve story as well.
Meno stated:
What makes you think that Asthma is the effect of sin in the world upon your body?
Meno stated:
??? Literally!?! Most theologians don’t take the Bible literally because they see that rationally and logically it doesn’t make sense. Could you share your esoteric knowledge with me as to how it is so clear? What is it that makes you see the Bible so clearly while everyone else sees it so differently?
What do you think of other religious people who are advocates of different religions from yours?
Do you think more than one religion can be right? If so, how you think we should deal with contradictory beliefs, miracles that contradict each other, etc? If not, what makes you think your religion is the right opposed to the rest?
How are you so sure that the Bible is a good representative of God’s word?
How do you separate the additions that were put into the Bible hundreds of years ago by bishops to accomodate the people switching to other religions? DId you know that scholars are not even sure if Mark and John were really written by Mark and John? Did you also know that over 10% of the meaning of words are lost in every translation, which is why the Qur’an always stays in the same language and not a single word is changed, the Bible on the other hand has been translated not just from one language to another but from one language to the same one in shorter or longer form hundreds of times?
What’s your take?
Gadfly of ILP If I may I will answer your questions in parts. When Adam and Eve ate the fruit, it was an act of free will; I say this because if you read Gen. 2:15-17, God had specifically informed Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Just a little trivia, it probably was a fig, if you read Gen. 3:7, “sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.” Of course it’s only a guess. When Adam ate of the fruit, his outward actions were displaying his inward attitude of rebellion. As a result, the ideal paradise was ruined and sin corrupted everything. I know this next thought may be simple, but, are you aware of the Laws of Thermodynamics? Well, the Second Law states, that anything in an enclosed environment tends to go from order to disorder. The downhill(entrophy) effects our bodies that were originally made to last forever, but because the Universe is compromised we feel the effects of this law. Diseases are another outgrowth of this corruption. The downhill effect also explains why we age and die, our bodies break down over time. Well, I’ll continue this discourse after I have reread your message.
For my next reply. Concerning the interpretation of the Bible; as any other work of literature, unless the author specifies, all works of literature must first be interpreted literally. This then is my personal approach to interpreting scripture; first I read the entire text, (book or chapter) to try to understand the flow. Next, I decide, does the text make literal sense? If it does, then that is how I interpret it. There are many passages in the Bible that have both literal and symbolic interpretations. For example, in John 10: 9, Jesus said he was the door. The first thing I see is a literal word door, but is Jesus literally a door? Of course not, but he is using it as a symbol of the entry into heaven. To understand the symbolic meaning, the literal meaning must be understood, otherwise we have confusion. Therefore, in Genesis 1, the word day must interpreted literally, otherwise we are clueless to the meaning of the word YOM(day) in its text. To begin with anything other than a literal interpretation could very commit a gross injustice to the author.