The philosopher should have a reason for questioning anything. The "normal" or the unusual. He cannot question just because he feels like it, or because he is a philosopher. There has to be a reason.

Well my reason is that a lot of what goes on in this life seems perfectly meaningless and in the true sense of the word, irrational. Many things which seem highly valued by a lot of people seem hardly worth the effort of pursuing, we live our three score years and ten, if we're lucky, and then vanish into the oblivion from whence we came. None of it seems to make much sense to me. I am the outcome, or at least an expression, of a process which started billions of years ago inside some star somewhere. For what? Watch television? Work until I die?

That's my reason.

Well my reason is that a lot of what goes on in this life seems perfectly meaningless and in the true sense of the word, irrational. Many things which seem highly valued by a lot of people seem hardly worth the effort of pursuing, we live our three score years and ten, if we're lucky, and then vanish into the oblivion from whence we came. None of it seems to make much sense to me. I am the outcome, or at least an expression, of a process which started billions of years ago inside some star somewhere. For what? Watch television? Work until I die?

That's my reason.

Just what are you questioning?

Have you ever looked out at life and thought 'boy what does it all mean? Isn't there more to it than just our little lives and personalities and the things we do and have?' You know, asked The Big Questions. That's really what I see philosophy as being. So now I am beginning to understand why we always seem to be arguing at cross purposes.

Dunno. Maybe I shouldn't say this stuff. Maybe I am being too personal or too earnest.

In my opinion, it is the belief that philosophers are supposed to ask only the Big Questions that partly fuels the view that philosophy gets nowhere and is a lot of nonsense, and is a big waste of time. And that would be right if that is what philosophy is.

Where would science have got if scientists had not rolled up their sleeves and asked many little questions.

So we have made a lot of progress in this thread, in my view. My idea of philosophy is asking questions about meaning, purpose, and the like, whereas others think this is a waste of time and philosophy is really just about right use of language. I think that clarifies things a great deal and I shall set my expectations accordingly.

Have you ever looked out at life and thought 'boy what does it all mean? Isn't there more to it than just our little lives and personalities and the things we do and have?' You know, asked The Big Questions. That's really what I see philosophy as being. So now I am beginning to understand why we always seem to be arguing at cross purposes.

Dunno. Maybe I shouldn't say this stuff. Maybe I am being too personal or too earnest.

I think it is the investigators belief that by answering the little questions the answers to the big questions will become clear.

Whereas the interpreters (or are we talking about system builders) believe that if the big questions can be answered then the little pieces will all fall into place.

By the way, is your choice of the term "investigators" a nod to Wittgenstein?

from what I know of Heidegger, I very much admire his philosophy. There are many philosophers I admire, and many of them do deal with profound questions; and I know there are many kindred spirits on the forum. But - each to his own, I don't want to labour the point.

To say that "nothing is hidden" is to say that words like "truth" or "knowledge" do not have, in addition to their ordinary everyday meanings, some secret meanings that only philosophers are able to discover. There are no secret meanings. There is no, "what the word 'really means'" that Lacan or Heidegger has discovered.

But when people argue about the meaning of consciousness, or about the meaning of right and wrong, are they really arguing about the definition of the words? The words have a definition, it may not be a good one, it may be completely incorrect. It seems to me like they are arguing about the nature of the human mind and the nature of morality, even if the argument does take a nose dive into semantics at some point.

Like in the "free will" thread, some people just popped in and said "free will is this; therefore we have/don't have it". When the real issue is more complex and deals with areas of science that we still don't know much about.

When people say that free will is this or that, that doesn't mean that they actually use the term "free will" the way they define it. It is notorious among linguists that informants are rarely if ever good reporters of how they actually use the term in question. They may tell you that the definition of word X is so and so, when what they say has absolutely nothing to do with how, in fact, they, and other fluent speakers of the language actually use the term. It takes an expert to define a term.

It isn't definitions (in the ordinary sense) philosophers are after. It is analyses of the concepts being talked about. Definitions are the start of analyses. But not the end-point. But definitions are a good start. A definition of a word is not a good definition if it misreports how the word is actually used by fluent speakers of the language. Sometimes there are bad definitions. But we can test a definition by determining whether it is actually how the term is used. In general, if the definition is too narrow, so it does not include everything that is designated by the term, or if it is too broad, and includes things not designated by the term, then the definition is a bad definition.

There is now, on this forum, an opportunity to witness, in action, a stark contrast between philosophy as investigation, and philosophy as interpretation. See the threads on the definition of reality, and on knowing that one knows, on the one hand, and the discussion of the groups on Nietzsche on the other hand. And notice too how the discussants of each tend to keep apart. It is quite fascinating. It is as if philosophy was two different subjects.
Neither group seems to take the slightest interest in the other group.

Some are anal and only go for surficial ideas, some dig deeper and others search for delusional answers and ideas?

How does one tell them apart?

East of the moon, west of the sun?
You have a lot of specific things, yet I'm uncertain about your deeper point.

Uhmm ..as far as I can interpet your intention, is that alot of different mentallities coexcist here on these fora. Some are anal and only go for surficial ideas, some dig deeper and others search for delusional answers and ideas?