I would've voted Very Much So, but I didn't actually read the topic. I thought you just wanted your own idea stickied.
EDIT:
I don't think I agree with your ideas Bones. Very little can ever be derived from a single situation, and I certainly don't believe your anger + hate argument holds much weight outside of a single instance, which I'll explain later.
On Math and Physics, I think you're somewhat right, but you're not going as deep as it gets. You can divide the world into mathematical formulas and "facts", which are just laws that relate to more qualitative things that you can't really describe with a formula. But I think it goes deeper. Because in the end, mathematics and facts are intertwined. Facts describe the "current" (if time can truly be said to exist, it's a question out there in physics) state of the universe OR a state that existed in the past. However, they can't accurately describe how that state changes and the processes behind that state change. That's where mathematical formulas come into being, to describe complicated changes over time which we can't. So really, math and facts are deeply intertwined. But again, it's deeper. Mathematics is a human construct which represents a constant or change in the physical universe (which doesn't operate upon human constructs and creations). We have these two different "languages" because we can't describe these changes with any language ultimately intended for conversation and ideas, not formulas. The words to describe facts are also part of language, a human construct, but which are simple enough to be described in conventional terms. In the end, facts are simply things that are true about the universe. The conclusion I draw, then, is that mathematics and "facts" are the same thing, expressed in different ways. Since they're descriptions of the four dimensions of the universe that we think are significant enough for us (either since the others are small or don't really affect us), they explain everything about the universe, because they are everything about the universe, and that's what science strives to know.
Philosophy, then, is a shallower interpretation of these facts and formulas to reach a point of reasonable knowledge about the universe. Generally it's human examination twisted by what they think or would like to be true. The idea I posted above, is, I think, a logical conclusion. Logic is what all philosophy is based on, and your philosophical ideas should be based on sound logic before you allow them to affect your life.
On anger and hate, I'm generally tempted to make a joke about the dark side, but it's already been done. Emotion is simply a human evolved mechanism for making decisions faster. It's a factor in our logical equation for reasonable action based on our past experiences that dictates easy solutions. It's great in certain circumstances because it allows us to make decisions that aren't really important without thinking them through completely like you might if you were writing an essay about, say, philosophy. However, they push our decisions in a certain direction that might not be completely wise. You see, our emotions tend to over-exaggerate circumstances. If you're angry or nervous or lonely or even horny when you have a conversation or any other social interaction you'll often not make a wise decision about that conversation and leave a negative impact on the person. Emotions like love or empathy do this too, but it's far better to leave an impression that's positive than one that's negative for obvious reasons. So in certain situations, like one where you need an energy boost or a motivation boost, anger or excitement or hate is great, as long as you don't let it last, because emotions like to latch on to objects, like other people. That's not good.
Poll