RE: What's the Use?
I agree for the most part! It would be interested to see if a human being would react to shapes and colors without learning about them, meaning without anyone telling the child what is useful or not.
Also, Monday-Tom and Tuesday-Tom are even more fluid, as maybe Tuesday-Tom decides to leave his family and thus ends his usefulness. But someone leaving was not useful for the family beforehand (if we at least keep the concept of family=useful), so in this case the deed defines the person, and in a way the future influences the past. A "good" (yay, more concepts) person cannot do "bad" deeds, likewise can a "bad" person not do "good" deeds. But we know this is not true, so logically the result would be that the person either changes frequently between good and bad, or the done deed defines the person. Having this uncertanty, "useful" and "not-useful" are way better concepts than "good" and "bad".
Thank you for sparking those thoughts!
You've one leg in science and the other in "philosophy" (thinking about things in the macro-scale). That's good! 👍
As a good friend of mine said: "
Living life is like running a race. Science (or the materialistic view) is one leg, philosophy is the other. Most people try to run their race with only one leg, thats why so many stumble and fall. You need both."
That sounds like a famous quote!