Philosopher questions are a total crock of S***

While making the rounds of news websites, I notice that it is supposedly "World Philosopher Day" or something like that. I scanned the article and found it, as expected, full of the crap that modern philosophy is today. But then I realized that I had an excellent case study to help those of you who are trying to detox from the strange problems of faith and reasoning deficiency that has afflicted many moderns. This is especially for you young readers, in genuine fondness.

First some background. Philosophy ain't what it used to be, so do not be fooled that it still has its intellectual and noble luster. Here's the problem. Ancient philosophy, which was noble, was the amalgamation of the best of human beings pondering about the meaning of life. Thus the ancient philosophers included their perceptions of the divinity (their faith) and also what we call psychology (the reasons for human behavior). Thus ancient philosophers would draw upon all aspects of life, and hence leave open all possibilities, when they reasoned their way through problems.

Modern philosophers have, in mirroring modern intellectual thought, compartmentalized philosophy out of the natural fullness of background of what modern philosophers now consider to be ancillary and thus invalid considerations, such as faith. Thus they tend to think they are posing philosophical questions when they construct binary decision trees and pose them to each other or to the unsuspecting reader. So a modern philosopher question is not "Why" but "Would you do A or B?" When one ponders "Why" one has to consider that C, D, E, F and unimaginable xu6mx? might exist as explanations or options. Thus modern philosophers are guilty of collusion in rendering modern thought of humans to be more and more like rigid computer programs that deny the noble, the unknown, the unexpected and the numinous. They both deliberately and unconsciously contribute to the societal darkness of spirit and depression by implying that everyone would be helpless in dire situations. Just reading their "ruminations" is depressing, and I'm glad I had a great piece of chocolate cheesecake before I read the article rather than after.

So here is the case study. I copy here one of their stupid scenarios, which they have the nerve to call a "philosophical question."

Consider another case: you and six others are kidnapped, and the kidnapper somehow persuades you that if you shoot dead one of the other hostages, he will set the remaining five free, whereas if you do not, he will shoot all six. (Either way, he'll release you.)

It's almost insulting to all our dignity to deal with this "case" but I know that many of you, through no lack of intelligence, will take the bait when you hear such a question. So I will deal with it so you learn to recognize the stinking thinking (as they call it in AA rehab) behind these so called philosophical questions.

First of all, you are forced to accept a totally unrealistic scenario because it has been stripped to lifeless lack of detail. Are the hostages bound or free to move around? Not even such basic information is given, yet you are supposed to answer which of the only two choices you would make. What if the rest of the hostages were fellow kidnappers that he had turned on, and thus they were not innocent? Are any of them children or infants? You are supposed to gobble up a lifeless situation that never reflects real life. In real life there are real people with real contexts in every situation that informs what you might or might not do. So you should refuse to answer such a moronic and stupid "philosophical case" right from the start, since it does not describe a genuine human situation, having been stripped of all detail.

Second of all, since you lack extra information (like how well armed is the hostage taker?) you cannot answer any more plausible answers than the "yes" or "no" to the "deal" you are offered. For example, suppose he has a gun that is not automatic. Suppose some of the hostages are smart and able people. Could you pretend to agree, take the gun, and catching the eye of the first person you are supposed to "shoot" give him or her a signal to fall to the ground while you shoot the hostage taker? I mean, duh.

Third, even if you agree to the stupid scenario, why would you not choose in reality to do an option "C" or "D?" For example, what if you refuse to make the decision and instead, make an impassioned plea for grace to the hostage taker, ask him if he ever had a mother, fall on your knees and refuse to answer, praying only to God, and etc. and so on. World history is full of such events where the hostage taker has a conversion, an enlightenment and/or a change in heart, being baffled by such a response.

So do not fall for ridiculous modern poseurs who claim to be philosophers, since they have stripped all the context and richness of humanity and the divine from their supposed ponderings, and make them like cheap quiz shows. I had a former friend who used to love asking these types of questions which he called 'out of the box' or 'lateral'" thinking, and they annoyed me for their binary tree depressive computer thinking back then, and that was fifteen years ago.

A genuine philosopher of the ancient sort would never have thought of a question such as the "case" above. He or she would have pondered something like "Where does the desire to take a hostage come from?" That could have led into all sorts of fascinating, intellectual and spiritually rich mining of true philosophy. What does make a "hostage taker" anyway? A philosopher could write books about that very subject and thus, in the exploration, provide some genuine information and thoughts about context, scenarios and options for reaction.

So happy "World Philosopher Day," another fake by fakes in a poseur society. *Loud raspberry* for self satisfied modern manipulators.

And young people, do not be buffaloed into answering stupidly crafted questions. This quiz and reality show generation needs to realize that you should model yourself after what I demonstrated above, which is to refuse to be fooled into thinking that if you were "smart" you'd answer the questions as posed, and select the "right answer" (or, accept the depressive doctrination that there is no happy ending to the question, since it is arranged to be deliberately nihilistic). Refuse to let your mind be stultified by such artificial and destructive games.

I hope that you have found this helpful. It is not a trivial matter, if you think about it. Since faith has been artificially decoupled from reasoning, at the same time that genuine rational reasoning has become taught by society to be increasingly irrational, you need to identify such brainwashing techniques that pose as asking "morality" questions, but as you can see, since they provide no reference point for morality, TOTALLY lack a moral context rather than as falsely promoted being a morality based case.