Isn't all that philosophy a lot of bull shit?

I kept getting this one a while ago. In fact, my friend Robert and I were talking. I said that I understand why all of this stuff is important, I just don't understand it. Robert said that he feels the opposite way. (By the way, why do we say that something that is reciprocal is opposite? reciprocal, as far as I understand, has to do with flipping the fractions; but these are not opposites in at least a couple of ways. For example, should not the opposite of a fraction be a whole?).

Recap:

Jake: I understand why all of these inquiries and reasons are important, but I do not understand them in general.

Robert: I understand these inquiries in general, but I do not understand why they are important.

This has to do with the baby logic we have been doing for the past few entries. Robert and I have conflicting ideas about where and when analytic, empirical, concrete knowledge should be employed. But both of our standpoints are positive and very much ambiguous. His is more about how critical thinking happens after quantitative analysis; living in the house versus building the house. Of course he dabbles in both. Robert is a consummate logician, he has mastered the few mathematical logic courses (a mere 2, plus a third sister course in the Philosophy of Language). He understands the material where I do not. But where is its access to a greater truth.

Now, I have said my position several places on this blog before. Namely, that you cannot remove the ethical implications of building the house from the ethical implications of living in the house. There is a teleological or design-based method employed in the creation of the house. The people who built the house knew that the ethical implication of living there was that the people's lives who live there will be better.

Colin Powell is an excellent illustration of such a teleological motive. He did not want an unethical war, so he resigned under President George W. Bush.