Philosophy v science: which can answer the big questions of life?

[relativetruth]

^^^^
What other society exists?

The society that exists between two human beings like you and I.

Society is the cumulative assembly of relationships between networked individuals. (my definition)(totally meaninglessness , I know).

Each individual A will have many different relationships with another individual B.

For example.

At home my wife is the boss, she sorts out the duties for everybody. I get to do the garbage, the lawn, and a long list of unspecified things.
In this instance I am the subordinate and she is the superior.

When it comes to managing our overall finances I am superior and she is the  subordinate.

At the same time we make all 'big' decisions jointly and there is no superior and subordinate.

When you have a society with more then two people there are going to be times when you need a third person in order to resolve a dispute.

And in the narrow confines of the details of that dispute that third person is 'superior' to the other two 'subordinates'. This is because this third person has made the decision which overrules the thinking of the other two.

[none]

^^^^
What other society exists?

The society that exists between two human beings like you and I.

Society is the cumulative assembly of relationships between networked individuals. (my definition)(totally meaninglessness , I know).

Each individual A will have many different relationships with another individual B.

For example.

At home my wife is the boss, she sorts out the duties for everybody. I get to do the garbage, the lawn, and a long list of unspecified things.
In this instance I am the subordinate and she is the superior.

When it comes to managing our overall finances I am superior and she is the  subordinate.

At the same time we make all 'big' decisions jointly and there is no superior and subordinate.

When you have a society with more then two people there are going to be times when you need a third person in order to resolve a dispute.

And in the narrow confines of the details of that dispute that third person is 'superior' to the other two 'subordinates'. This is because this third person has made the decision which overrules the thinking of the other two.

From what you have written it appears you can't get along with anyone because you don't treat people with respect.

[One Above All]

And without religion, we'd still be living in the jungle with our primate cousins.

What's the reasoning behind that statement?

You'd prefer to live in the jungle? 

If my choices were "live in the jungle" or "live with atrocities", I'd choose the jungle.

[relativetruth]

^^^^
What other society exists?

The society that exists between two human beings like you and I.

Society is the cumulative assembly of relationships between networked individuals. (my definition)(totally meaninglessness , I know).

Each individual A will have many different relationships with another individual B.

For example.

At home my wife is the boss, she sorts out the duties for everybody. I get to do the garbage, the lawn, and a long list of unspecified things.
In this instance I am the subordinate and she is the superior.

When it comes to managing our overall finances I am superior and she is the  subordinate.

At the same time we make all 'big' decisions jointly and there is no superior and subordinate.

When you have a society with more then two people there are going to be times when you need a third person in order to resolve a dispute.

And in the narrow confines of the details of that dispute that third person is 'superior' to the other two 'subordinates'. This is because this third person has made the decision which overrules the thinking of the other two.

From what you have written it appears you can't get along with anyone because you don't treat people with respect.

I am sorry that the point I tried to make seems to be completely lost (by you at least). My bad.

I was trying to take out any emotional context in the use of 'superior' and 'subordinate' and also to point that in most relationships between individuals there are many strands and layers.

I am disappointed that you did not address the viewpoint I was making and decided, instead,  to express your thoughts on my personality which you gaged from a few lines of my posts.

[none]

^^^^
What other society exists?

The society that exists between two human beings like you and I.

Society is the cumulative assembly of relationships between networked individuals. (my definition)(totally meaninglessness , I know).

Each individual A will have many different relationships with another individual B.

For example.

At home my wife is the boss, she sorts out the duties for everybody. I get to do the garbage, the lawn, and a long list of unspecified things.
In this instance I am the subordinate and she is the superior.

When it comes to managing our overall finances I am superior and she is the  subordinate.

At the same time we make all 'big' decisions jointly and there is no superior and subordinate.

When you have a society with more then two people there are going to be times when you need a third person in order to resolve a dispute.

And in the narrow confines of the details of that dispute that third person is 'superior' to the other two 'subordinates'. This is because this third person has made the decision which overrules the thinking of the other two.

From what you have written it appears you can't get along with anyone because you don't treat people with respect.

I am sorry that the point I tried to make seems to be completely lost (by you at least). My bad.

I was trying to take out any emotional context in the use of 'superior' and 'subordinate' and also to point that in most relationships between individuals there are many strands and layers.

I am disappointed that you did not address the viewpoint I was making and decided, instead,  to express your thoughts on my personality which you gaged from a few lines of my posts.

Why should I care about your emotions?

[Gnu Ordure]

I ask because I find it difficult to believe that our technological development was based on a belief in the supernatural rather than reason, observation of the natural world and practical experimentation.

That's not quite what I'm saying. I'm saying that religion was functional and adaptive for thirty thousand years before science and technology evolved from that foundation.

But given that the technological advances of the last two hundred years are effectively destroying the planet, perhaps we should have stuck with religion.

Stupid monkeys.

[none]

I ask because I find it difficult to believe that our technological development was based on a belief in the supernatural rather than reason, observation of the natural world and practical experimentation.

That's not quite what I'm saying. I'm saying that religion was functional and adaptive for thirty thousand years before science and technology evolved from that foundation.

But given that the technological advances of the last two hundred years are effectively destroying the planet, perhaps we should have stuck with religion.

Stupid monkeys.

you maybe, but for me I definitely disagree. I am a human being what are you?

[Gohavesomefun]

I didn't realise religion was enviromently friendly...

Anyway, to answer OP's question; Science can and probably will. Philosphy has never provided any specific answer to any factual problem.

[Gnu Ordure]

And without religion, we'd still be living in the jungle with our primate cousins.

What's the reasoning behind that statement?

The ubiquity of religion in human history indicates that it was evolutionarily adaptive, and possibly necessary for neolithic societies to survive.   

If my choices were "live in the jungle" or "live with atrocities", I'd choose the jungle.

Lots of atrocities in the jungle, OAA. 

[One Above All]

Lots of atrocities in the jungle, OOA. 

I used "or"; not "and/or". There's a reason for that.

[Gnu Ordure]

And my point was that your two options aren't mutually exclusive.

[none]

And my point was that your two options aren't mutually exclusive.

there is only one escape from the jungle, death.