Philosophy is not meant to be applied to everyday life.

Your arguments are better than I expected. --------------------------------- Your arguments: 1. An endless loop of contradiction 2. 'There are actually some that do apply all the time' i.e. "Do what results in the most happiness, both for you and others, both now and in the future" 3.'With more inconsistent philosophies, it is often a matter of interpretation' ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Just proves my point. In context, there is no contradiction. When I wrote 'Philosophy is not meant to be applied to everyday life' it implied all other philosophies. But what you really said is that it could be misinterpreted to have a completely different meaning, which is my basis that Philosophy can't be used to guide an individual in everyday life. As an argument, you still haven't proven that my concept is in any way wrong. 2. There are not any philosophies that apply in every given situation or interpretation. Your example, 'Do what results in the most happiness, both for you and others, both now and in the future,' fails to acknowledge that someone cannot in any way know what would 'result' in most happiness unless looking back in hindsight. More so, the quote refers to 'others.' Who are others, everyone? Do you strive more for your happiness or mine? If you take the quote "The end justifies the means," this quote in no way can be applied by anyone. Similar to your quote, no one can know the RESULT before the action. So it does not matter even if the end really does justify the means. 3. Yes, with inconsistent (all) philosophies my point is that" it IS a matter of interpretation. Because of this, it doesn't matter that some people can accurately interpret one philosophy in ONE given situation. Since all philosophy is a matter of interpretation, it will be misinterpreted, or applied incorrectly. Philosophy is not meant to be applied to everyday life, because the idea any quote presents cannot be accurately followed by an individual. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rather than just thinking of the affect philosophy has on an individual, how much does it really impact them? COGNITIVE DISSONANCE: psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously Cognitive dissonance is the concept of how individuals act after doing something against their beliefs. The general response to cognitive dissonance is that an individual changes their beliefs. For example, someone does something immoral. Most would 'rationalize' and say to themselves something like 'Not a big deal,' 'doesn't matter' or might question the basis of morality. Either way, it's how people justify their actions: They change their beliefs. The main concept is that actions affect beliefs more than beliefs affect actions. So philosophy in comparison doesn't really guide an individual if the individual's actions are what influence them. If anything, an individual would adopt a philosophy in response to one of their actions and just as soon change it after another action. Because philosophy is meant to guide someone, it fails to do so when actions determine beliefs. Rather than guiding or influencing an individual, all it really does is act as a third wheel. Summary: 1. Philosophy can't guide an individual because an individual cannot interpret it correctly. 2. If actions determine beliefs, then it is the individual's actions that are 'guiding' them not the philosophy. Because philosophy's purpose is to guide (": to direct or influence the thoughts or behavior of") someone, it fails to do so if someone's actions already have determined their beliefs. Sources: http://www.skepdic.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com...