There's certainly philosophy that where poetry and philosophy overlaps. Neitzsche is perhaps the strongest example of this approach. There's also philosophy that reads like program code, or like a stage play.
> If philosophy can't "prove or disprove facts", then what's its use ? To be pleasant to read ? To provide endless empty rhetorical discourse on wether we have a soul or whatever other useless question?
Philosophy is perhaps best characterized as a process for elliminating false certainty, to raise difficult questions.
Philsophy would identify your implicit assumptions that things need a purpose to exist, and ask why that is, and what is the nature of having a purpose, and interrogate you about the purpose of having a purpose.
This seems like a set of frivolous questions, but it's very to walk around with a bunch of assumptions you were told at some point and never really questioning them. Above all, philosophy is as toolset for identifing implicit ideas and dragging them out in the light for closer scrutiny.
> If philosophy can't "prove or disprove facts", then what's its use ? To be pleasant to read ? To provide endless empty rhetorical discourse on wether we have a soul or whatever other useless question?
Philosophy is perhaps best characterized as a process for elliminating false certainty, to raise difficult questions.
Philsophy would identify your implicit assumptions that things need a purpose to exist, and ask why that is, and what is the nature of having a purpose, and interrogate you about the purpose of having a purpose.
This seems like a set of frivolous questions, but it's very to walk around with a bunch of assumptions you were told at some point and never really questioning them. Above all, philosophy is as toolset for identifing implicit ideas and dragging them out in the light for closer scrutiny.