cooperative in what sense

they haven't answered the existential questions. You said so yourself, we've been around for centuries. By now a people that have managed to create lasers, crafts that can reach outside of our own atmosphere, and create clones through stem cells surely should have the knowledge as to why we're here, what got us here, what happens after, etc


& the funny thing is we should've found out why we here before we found out how to build spaceships and lasers and create clones

I'm pretty sure people have been asking "Why are we here?" "Who put us here?" "What happens next?" waaaaay before they were like "Shit, can we build lasers, spaceships, and clones?"

lol

Cooperative in the sense that without one another there would be neither.

Philosophy will always exist as people will always ask these existential questions

Its in our nature to question how we came to inhabit this vast environment and what put us here

Maybe when we have the answer one, or both, will cease to exist. But Philosophy can exist without science.

The same way science can exist without philosophy

If Science proved everything we needed answered, we wouldnt have Philosophy

Philosophy is the question, science is the answer. Without questions, there are no answers. Without answers there are no questions. Therefore without either science, or philosophy, there would be neither.

No clue, 1 maybe. An infinite amount. We don't know how far this shit goes back, maybe eventually the universe stops expanding and collapses on itself. Maybe a new one is born from that. Maybe it's happened over and over again. Maybe it never happened and what we perceive as reality is anything but. Couldn't tell you honestly but I believe we arent the only intelligent life in the universe. The odds of that just don't add up. Read a real good article about why we will never know though, I'll try and find it.

http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview...9z68?context=3

Not an article, a Reddit post but an extremely valid one.

^This.

A Shark Can Evolve To Live On Land Over The Course Of A Million Years (Fish > Tadpoles > Frogs > Lizards > Larger Amphibians > Crawling Mammals > Legged Mammals > etc.)
Place A Human In A Water Environment And They Will Evolve To Adapt To Their Conditions.

not exactly...

being placed in water is not an environmental change to a species...it doesnt necessitate evolution...put 1 million humans in water with no air and you'll have a million dead humans..

however if the world flooded slowly and it was necessary for humans to gradually need to hold their breath longer and longer to hunt or any other basic required function to sustain life...and i think that over time, we would evolve into something like a dolphin...a mammal that can stay under water for a while...but still needs air.

You Should Know I Was Talking About The Second Situation.
HOWEVER. Humans Are One Of The Only Creatures Who Have A Conscience, Self-Awareness, Cognitive Thoughts, Reasoning, etc. There Has Been Cases With Other Animals That Have Displayed Some Of These Traits But Not Nearly As Complex Or As Complete As Our Thought Process.

This is not entirely true.

Science is a very broad term, and desires to explain the phenomena of the universe through testable means.

Philosophy helps to give meaning to science, and vice versa, but it neither requires the other. A guy stuck on a deserted island can perform some measure of science in order to understand how to build a bigger bonfire without any philosophical inclinations.

Likewise, someone can build an entire philosophical system without doing any science, ever reading a scientific textbook, or knowing a single thing about science.

They are not symbiotic.