Words have their own magic, own logic and each word creates a sequence of its own. Novelists know, poets know:
The real thing is not to tell the truth; the real thing is to make you aware, alert - through words

A corporal is instructing his platoon. He calls a newly-arrived soldier and asks him, "You, Giant What is the flag for you?"
"The flag," answers the soldier, "is a piece of cloth of different colors."
"What What are you saying? You idiot! The flag is everything. The flag is your mother, remember, your mother!"
Then he turns to the next soldier and asks, "Tell me what is a flag?"
"Gianz's mother," replies the soldier.

But look at the people around you, the politicians, the so called scholars; around. they talk beautifully, and if you are not alert you can be very easily deceived by them

The motion of the planet around the sun, the sun around the center of the galaxy, and the motion of the galaxy through the universe as it expands is all "already set up" and virtually unstoppable for a very long time.

Gravity, weather, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes are going to form, we know this, and there's not a dam thing we can do about it.

(You "do" have choices on a personal level that is "not" set up in advance, however, so…choose wisely.)

Enki is right that the boundaries are not firm. It is often a matter of academic politics: "which faculty department wants to teach Hobbes?"

But in general, philosophical questions concern the foundations beneath scientific questions, and that includes the social sciences. So for example, "what are the checks on the power of elected officials in country ABC" is a question of political science. The question, "what counts as a legitimate or fair election and why?" is in the domain of philosophy.

The questions are the same, but the answers are different.

In any science there is the system of logic that applies to those ideas. There are appropriate and inappropriate questions. Philosophy can respect or disrespect those boundaries but if it must respect them then it is not philosophy. Philosophy is an attempt at new learning, new thinking and new ideas. A deck of cards is not new but the permutations of a shuffle are as countless as the stars. Philosophy is fundamentally a look for a new shuffle.

Life

Think about the entire universe...in the whole spectrum of things...with galaxies and stars colliding with one another...Black holes forming, stars reforming after one dies...the idea that a small rock, going around a small sun in the outer edge of our galaxy being able to form a life form and being able to contemplate how it all began is one of the strangest things I can think of.

The idea of life is taken to much for granted, in my opinion. Life doesn't need to exist and shouldn't exist. The idea that an idea exist would make me question everything.

However, try thinking of an entire universe without any life in it and it seems like a waste. A person might ask why would the universe exist if there wasn't any life in it.

If you go smaller, you would see we are nothing more than a set of atoms. If we are nothing more than a set of atoms and molecules, why should one molecule care if the it is used by another set of molecules...and yet, if another animal comes and starts eating your arm...you will protect your arm the best you can.

Does it make sense that a set of Molecules formed an idea of protecting itself without something first bringing this idea into existence.

Some might look at a computer and say that this is proof that this could happen...but a computer doesn't care if I take the parts off of this computer and put it into a different computer...and if it did...it is not because the computer formed on its own...it is because we made this happen.

It might not be Philosophical but it is one of the reasons I have to believe in the existence of God

It is really tough and difficult to do such exercises.

Pl see the following

Quote:

As Paul Ricœur reminds us in L'Idéologie et l'utopie, the ascription of the characteristic of being 'ideological' to a set of ideas has traditionally always had pejorative implications. One's own ideas are not ideological, only those of one's adversaries.[1] The philosophical and critical writings of the early Sartre do not offer an explicit discussion of the concept of ideology. Even in Cahiers pour une morale, notable for the evidence they provide of Sartre's increasing rapprochement with Marxism, ideology per se is never Sartre's centre of interest. This observation would perhaps seem unnoteworthy were it not for the numerous and varied examples of ideology[2] at work to be found in Sartre's critical and, in particular, literary works. In these works ideological positions are presented almost exclusively in a negative light. For this reason, and even more importantly because of the intrinsic character of his existentialist philosophy, it seems likely that the early Sartre did not consider his own position ideological in any significant sense. The later Sartre of Quéstions de méthode, however, refers to existentialism itself as an ideology.[3] In this context it is not immediately clear whether Sartre considers the label 'ideological' to be implicitly pejorative or whether he means to employ the term in a neutrally descriptive way. Given his project of formulating a synthesis of Marxism and existentialism in this work, the latter interpretation would seem the most plausible. And yet in view of the later Sartre's tendency, in interviews notably, to be critical, even reductive at times,[4] of his earlier philosophical positions, it is perhaps fair to infer an implicitly pejorative tone to some extent.[5] Setting aside this matter for the time being, it is clear that an awareness of the later Sartre's characterisation of existentialism as 'ideological' is greatly beneficial to an analysis of his early philosophy in relation to ideology. Such an awareness inevitably stimulates a profound questioning of what the early Sartre's texts themselves often seem to be impressing on the reader with such force, namely that the theoretical underpinnings of their arguments and positions are non-ideological. A valuable critical distance between reader and text is thus introduced into the interpretative process as we are brought to recognise that, with regard to the matter of ideology, the truth may well lie at times not just in what the early Sartre states explicitly but also in what he does not say.

Unquote:

On reading it, I am getting more confused. Pl wait. Let me consult my Mentor and let you know the actual position.