Philosophy is Important

I am glad to join this debate!Am I correct that Pro thinks that modern philosophy is not included under philosophy but rather some sort of morosophy or pseudosophy that is unimportant? Or a better question for Pro, is modern 'philosophy' subjective philosophy as opposed to objective?It also appears that philosophy (or 'objective' philosophy) is a systems of knowledge that according to Pro consist of Truth, Practical Truth, and Knowledge. He gave a list of all the characteristics, which I will go over later.I will first address Pro's concluding statement "Philosophy is important because it is our only rational guide to what we ought to do, both on a personal level and on a societal level." To counter this, I would like to introduce what I call misosophy, which I think is just as good if not better than Pro's philosophy. At it's root, Misosophy means "Hatred of Wisdom".Similar to philosophy, misosophy studies questions to fundamental problems, it does this by applying rational argument and critical thought. The difference is how misosophy goes about doing this. Misosophy is rigorous, stringent, and criticises wisdom instead of being passionate of it. The misosopher, instead of touting wisdom as truth and being apologetic towards it, attacks it on all fronts, including their own wisdom and misosophies. A misosopher purges the weakness of wisdom, irregardless of how much they agree with it, instead of ignoring it. A misosopher is to wisdom as a skeptic is to explanation.Given that misosophy can just as easily be used as a system of knowledge that can rationally guide us, it is not the case philosophy is the only guide there is.In their opening statement, Pro gave a summary of "objective philosophy". So far, Pro has not defined a single one of their terms and has given little to no detail for anything in their list of characteristic. So I will be seeking to clear some things up Pro: "Truth is a correspondence with reality" Define "Truth", how is it in correspondence with reality?Pro: "Truth is Absolute- their are no degrees of Truth" "Truth is Universal- true for all if true for one" Truth is Global- their are no cultural boundaries" "Truth is Timeless- true now if ever true and true forever"This is common wisdom in philosophy. But what is an absolute? And what is an absolute truth? Is that not a contradictio in terminis?New World Encyclopedia:"The term Absolute denotes unconditioned and/or independence in the strongest sense." Freedictionary:"AbsolutePhilosophy a. Something regarded as the ultimate basis of all thought and being. Used with the. b. Something regarded as independent of and unrelated to anything else."Oxford dictionary:"Philosophy A value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things" Very romantic, but sounds like a bunch of nonsensical goobleygook to me. Pro can correct if they mean something totally different than these standard philosophical definitions.So if we are talking about "Absolute truth" it would mean that the truth is independent, unrelated to anything else, and has no degrees. If truth is to be absolute, then it is not conditioned on any time, place, person, thing, or concept. It must be always correct, everywhere, all the time, under any condition. For an absolute truth to be validated it must be inevitably true irregardless of a dependency, restriction, qualification or relation anybody could possibly conceive, because if anyone can conceive of any circumstance in which an absolute truth is not true, it is not absolute. But this doesn't tell us anything about just what the hell an absolute truth is. Nothing! Absolute “That which has no relation", doesn't mean anything. Any word that is without a reference to something else is goobleygook. It's like if I said, Fendia queti melia, which roughly translates to "nothing but something".The term provides no meaning whatsoever. It's like if you were to ask me what color my bike is and I answered, "The color is not green". Then what is it? If absolute is not related to anything else, independent of anything, not conditioned on anything, what the hell are we talking about? The very fact absolute is a concept is self contradictory because it must first be relative to something else, but it is supposedly "Absolute".And can Pro actually provide at least one "absolute truth"? Because they haven't as of yet. This is just a rhetorical question. Pro will be unable to provide one single truth that is absolute, since it is unworkable just like square circles. It's absurd for anyone to show that a proposition is valid for all possible circumstances without restrictions on time, place, and person or thing! If pro feels differently, just how does pro suggest such a thing be done?"Knowledge includes the following degrees:"Thankfully knowledge isn't "absolute". Can you elaborate on self-evident and evident truths and "weak" and "strong" opinions?Pro: "philosophy tells us that since man alone uses reason to make judgments, Man's life is the standard of value." It tells us that we are all equally human (with different attributes, of course) and we therefore all have the same basic needs."First off, who is philosophy? This is sounding more and more like religious dogma.Pro: "Practical Truth is a correspondence with man's life"Then-"Practical Truth is Universal Practical Truth is AbsolutePractical Truth is GlobalPractical Truth is Timeless"What? If it is a correspondence with a man's life, how is it timeless, universal, absolute, or global? If it is absolute it cannot have any relation to a man's life. If it is timeless and universal, it cannot also have similarity with a man's life."Therefore, Practical Truth is the standard of reference for Values relevant to man."Non-sequitur. "The highest good is perfect being [of the individual]" What does that even mean? Nonsense. Non-being is absolute evil" What the hell is a "non-being"? What is absolute evil?That's all I can cover.