im going to create an argument logically, then step outside of it, so hold on to your butts: there seems to be a consensus on sciforums lately (sorry to those of you who disagree) with the notion of knowledge being wrapped up within the subject/object dichotomy. we have nelson, with his arcane explanations of our "beliefs" controlling our "thoughts" and blinding us from the true power of god. we have Busy Lizzy (where the hell did she go?) and her gynomypisteology on how belief coopts our rationality/self-awareness. we have orthogonal: who said it best along the lines of he rejects enlightenment absolutism as he rejects postmodern relativism. i agree. and of course, a few peopleagreed with my "belief assumptive in logic" asserations on "the illogical god" thread. whats the point? im wondering if anyone practices what they preach. uses the knowledge theyve intuited. tiassa took this question by the bullhorns when he asked straight up "what is it that we do with the knowledge we acquire" or something along those lines in his horsepucky thread. plz dont tell me you take philosophical information in bite-sized tidbits and put them in a drawer on the left side of your brain for when finals or a good debate pops up. i dont know about you, but im philosophizing because im looking for answers on life. my question is more practical than tiassa's however. it focuses on our individual experiences. what do we do with philosophy when we know (part) of it? how do we live it? i cant figure that one out. im not talking about 'how do you actualize existentialist theory in your everyday interactions.' i think thats something you just have to have running through your veins. what i mean is . . . well heres an example. lets go back to the subject/object dichotomy. for those of you who agree its true, well what do we do with this piece of information? heres what i tried to do: i concluded that if i believed this, then one can reason a causal relationship between subject and object, in which all knowledge is mere "interpretation" of the object at hand by the subject. if thats true, then to fully understand YOUR understanding of the object, you must understand the subject, yourself . to me this meant knowing one's motivations/emotions/assumptions, the stuff intrinsic to you and your identity, the stuff that influences your understanding of the world. if i applied this to my "relationship" with god for example, i realized some of my angst/depressed emotions motivated me to destroy god in my life. but i was still obsessed with him, and could not let the fucker go, and i realized part of me still needed him for security. (all of this takes too long to put into words) heres my question: when we realize that my fundamental assumptions are contradictory, what do i make of that? am i nothing, like derrida condemnds me to be? or can i make myself into something by existential action (existence precedes essence.) with so many philosophies out there, what do you do? i got into philosophy to find the answers on how to live, and theyre not here--in one coherent form. knowledge alone could not save me. i have to act, unfortunately, and im wondering what the fuck that entails. embracing one philosophy cant encapsulate every desire we have. to do so is to deny oneself. am i just rambling as an inexperienced youth? or am putting too much faith in the capabilities of philosophy?