Very well, read up on Kant and seems to be quite a clever guy.

However, can we all agree that Kirkegaard was a navel gazer that didn't produce anything useable? Specially since he based most of his stuff on "objective truth" which isn't reachable for 99.99% of us? It takes a genious to figure out what the objective truth really is/are?

Existentialism is as religious as it is scientific. It's a religion for intellectuals. I think it's important to realize that philosophy from the beginning has been more about wisdom and beauty on one side (Plato) and more about epistemology and technology on the other (Aristotle). For me, the wisdom/beauty element is what motivates me to study the structure of man's thought. (You know mathematicians have a certain love of numbers. Number is the symbolization of pure concept.)

Here's the thing. Let's say you've got science and practical philosophy. How does a man deal with the fact that he must die? Also, from the beginning, philosophy has been associated with making folks extremely happy. A purification of emotion, you might say, through the contemplation of ideal beauty.

Uhmmm ..yearh ..that's where most philosophy imo falls short and begins it's navel gazing and unproductivness.

I clearly remember how a CEO I worked for got deluded by his numbers on the baseline, there were huge and therefore concluded his company was strong, which I said it wasn't and everything would go to Hell, which it did.

I see what you mean, but I'm not sure that you see what I meant. It's not numbers as representation profit or cost, but numbers considered in themselves as numbers. Math is a strange thing, and it only becomes stranger and more seductive the more one considers it.

I see philosophers as doing the deepest purest research possible, because they are curious, entranced, etc.

I've got nothing against the more practical philosophers, but I find myself drawn to pure research, the conceptualization of conceptualization. And this isn't navel gazing but rather gazing-gazing. Looking at looking. Learning about what learning is in the first place.

I suspect I perfectly understand what you mean and intend. However our oppinions and definitions may strongly variate.
:flowers: