Ship of Fools: What is the point of philosophy?

Thread: What is the point of philosophy? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028818

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

Is it any use? Ah, see, that's a loaded philosophical question, which might suggest that I am a Utilitarian - one sort of philosopher.

Philosophy tends to get lumped together with Politics and Economics for English undergraduates who feel philosophy alone doesn't give them enough meat for their intellect to chew on. Why?

Philosophy used not to be separate from religion. For reasons of personal safety, if nothing else. But nowadays, a great many philosophers are atheists. Do Christians feel that, ergo, philosophy is now somewhat infra-dig?

Finally (for now) have I stumbled on the most interesting Dead Horses thread ever? I hope so. I hope not. That's (il)logical inconsistency, if anybody's interested...

[ 25. November 2014, 16:27: Message edited by: pimple ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:

Philosophy tends to get lumped together with Politics and Economics for English undergraduates who feel philosophy alone doesn't give them enough meat for their intellect to chew on.

I thought it was so they'd find it easier to get a job.

Only a philistine would say that philosophy has no use, though. For myself, I'd like to find a framework to explain the ideologies and assumptions guiding the society I see around me at present. Philosophy would help with that.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

It's an effort to make sense of the world, of reality.

Like any human effort to make sense of the world - including science and theology - it doesn't ever totally fit because reality is so endlessly varied, but seemingly not random either.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

It is a deeply analytical discipline that trains you to look at language, past the tacit assumptions, to see what's actually there, to understand speech and human behaviour a bit better; to spot flaws in arguments, to think clearly and logically. It helps you to construct arguments, present facts and arrive at deductions.

It also covers the history of ideas, what people thought at a certain period of time, how those ideas were developed, incorporated, expanded, formed the basis for, as it might be, theological doctrine and underpinned something of Western civilization in the process.

It examines the assumptions that we make, about life, existence, personality, colour, memory, etc etc.

There is quite a lot to it as there are many branches of philosophy - philosophy of science, mind, mathematics, aesthetics, language, etc etc etc. It sharpens up your thinking.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I have heard different claims about philosophy as a field. One is that the Western philosophic tradition hasn't actually solved any major problems in 2500 years. I think that is not accurate for several reasons:

1. It is often not clear what is meant by solving such a problem.

2. Some problems have certainly been largely resolved.

3. There is useful spin-off from the attempts (see below).

I have heard the observation that whenever philosophy makes significant progress in some direction, that whole sub-field breaks off and becomes a separate discipline: mathematics, psychology, sociology. At that point, philosophy no longer gets the credit.

I think there is now only a small market for "professional philosophy", but there is some need for widespread acquaintance with the ideas and methods of philosophy. Philosophers sometimes drive others away by being arrogant or contemptuous: dropping of obscure names, ridicule, an insecure insistence that their field is of paramount importance.

(I remember a colleague of mine in mathematics who lost respect for her rabbi when she learned that he was not familiar with the work of Kurt Godel. That seemed a bit unfair to me.)

Posted by Niminypiminy (# 15489) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:

Philosophy tends to get lumped together with Politics and Economics for English undergraduates who feel philosophy alone doesn't give them enough meat for their intellect to chew on. Why?

Philosophy used not to be separate from religion. For reasons of personal safety, if nothing else. But nowadays, a great many philosophers are atheists. Do Christians feel that, ergo, philosophy is now somewhat infra-dig?

I don't think Philosophy is normally lumped together with Politics and Economics. Doesn't this only happen at Oxford? At, you know, other universities you can study philosophy all on its own. And whereas a couple of decades ago philosophy departments were closing down, now it is looking much healthier, student numbers-wise.

There may be reasons internal to philosophy (possibly related to the way that analytic philosophy has attached itself to science) that most philosophers are atheists. I would say that a more important factor is that most academics are atheists. Academia is, on the whole, a bastion of liberal-secularism. Sometimes without the liberal. Philosophers are no more immune to their surrounding culture than anyone else.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Well, we started out as glairy chunks in the primordial soup, and now with opposable thumbs, we yodel hurting songs and cry into our soup because we can't decide whether to pick a spoon or fork to eat with. Philosophy helps with questions like that.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

You can do philosophy on its own at Oxford as well. Just as a point of order.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

The point of philosophy is to make sense out of life. It also helps to determine one's sense of ethics.

I can remember when I was about 16 I was trying to understand what my purpose was. As I looked at what I enjoyed the most it was when I helped people reach their potential.

Most of my life has been ordered around the helping professions. Even as I have entered retirement I still enjoy helping people. The ways I help have changed as I have aged. I would hope I can still contribute in some way for quite some time to come.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Philosophy confuses the hell out of me. So much of it seems to come to opposite conclusions and I don't have the brains to sort it out. Sad. [Frown]

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Read a bit of Plato and Aristotle. Can't say that I understand that much of it. Some of it's interesting for sure but much of it is rather dry for my liking.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

What Ariel said. All of it.

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I have heard different claims about philosophy as a field. One is that the Western philosophic tradition hasn't actually solved any major problems in 2500 years.

I agree with you that that's an unfair accusation. It's not unlike saying, "NASA spent $13 billion to bring back a bunch of rocks from the moon. Must be nice rocks."

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

It's what puts the Meta into Metaphysics, and as such it is, amongst other things, the basis for science. Ana as such it is woefully under-used and poorly understood by most applied scientists.

It's also (well, varous old Greeks), along with Christian doctrine, the basis for much of how our society, legal system etc is structured. Again, the plot appears to be lost somewhat.

We've probably become less civilised in some ways than we were in the 16/17th centuries.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
It's what puts the Meta into Metaphysics, and as such it is, amongst other things, the basis for science. Ana as such it is woefully under-used and poorly understood by most applied scientists.

It's also (well, varous old Greeks), along with Christian doctrine, the basis for much of how our society, legal system etc is structured. Again, the plot appears to be lost somewhat.

We've probably become less civilised in some ways than we were in the 16/17th centuries.

But on the plus side we no longer flog people almost to death, have public executions or throw people into stinking dark cold prison cells simply because they owe a few bob, then charge them for the privilege, so on the whole I think we're winning.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

There's philosophy for children too - a schools programme.

Philosophy4Children

I rather like the look of it.

They hope to help children -

•To learn to think before they speak and give reasons for what they say.
•To value their views and the views of others.
•Not take things personally.
•To learn respect and negotiation.
•To learn not to be fearful.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

These discussions often depend on whether you see philosophical developments as symptoms or causes. Let's call them both. There are a few that occur to me:

1. Science itself is an outcrop of philosophy, some would say, its crowning achievement. You could call it a shift from a priori thinking to empirical investigation - hence the old joke, that Aristotle could say that men have more teeth than women, since he never peered inside Mrs Aristotle's mouth. (On the other hand, maybe women lost more teeth then).
2. An example of this in more detail, is the medieval discussion of primary cause (divine) and secondary causes (natural). Some historians argue that this gave a great boost to the development of science; others disagree. This discussion comes up again with evolution, hence: 'God can make all things make themselves' (Kingsley).
3. In the modern period, developments such as existentialism, phenomenology, postmodernism, Marxism, psychoanalysis - shattered and decentred any stable view of reality. Thus humans found themselves uprooted and fragmented.

Of course, you can argue that these movements were reflections rather than causes; maybe both.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

There is no point to philosophy unless you think there is a point to philosophy.

And if you do not think there is a point to philosophy what is the point in thinking at all.

.
.
.

...or is this just Nihilism, another philosophy?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
There is no point to philosophy unless you think there is a point to philosophy.

And if you do not think there is a point to philosophy what is the point in thinking at all.

.
.
.

...or is this just Nihilism, another philosophy?

If you submitted that as your PhD thesis, your either fail or get a distinction!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But on the plus side we no longer flog people almost to death, have public executions or throw people into stinking dark cold prison cells simply because they owe a few bob, then charge them for the privilege...

I don't put any of that past the modern GOP, frankly. Especially the last, especially if the debtors are black.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
There's philosophy for children too - a schools programme.

Philosophy4Children

I rather like the look of it.

They hope to help children -

•To learn to think before they speak and give reasons for what they say.
•To value their views and the views of others.
•Not take things personally.
•To learn respect and negotiation.
•To learn not to be fearful.

That would probably be about my speed. [Smile]

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
There's philosophy for children too - a schools programme.

Philosophy4Children

I rather like the look of it.

They hope to help children -

•To learn to think before they speak and give reasons for what they say.
•To value their views and the views of others.
•Not take things personally.
•To learn respect and negotiation.
•To learn not to be fearful.

I like the look of it too. Shouldn't it be a required discipline at secondary-school level?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

Philosophy is about looking at the fundamentals of everything and anything in the light of reason. This has value in two ways: On one hand, it clarifies these fundamentals, at a minimum by exposing clearly the assumptions we make. On the other hand, it develops methods of reasoning and discourse in order to do this, thereby enhancing our intellectual capacity at both the individual and communal level.

At a basic level, philosophy asks three questions: "What is there?" (Metaphysics), "How do we know?" (Epistemology) and "What should we do about it?" (Ethics). If we could gather wisdom concerning these questions, wouldn't it be lovely? So we should philosophise. And in fact all people do now and then, naturally - children in particular. But we often find that our musing go nowhere and dissolve in vague speculations. The discovery of philosophy as an intellectual discipline is that if you really put your mind to these things, tenaciously and methodologically, you can say something more definite.

People often claim that philosophy has not arrived at any definite conclusions, but that is not quite right. Rather, over time philosophy tends to become a bit like mathematics. Every specific philosophical system is quite definite about a good many things. But there are different systems between which one can choose. This may not seem like progress, but it is. Because just like in mathematics a plethora of results follow from one set of a few axioms, and a different plethora of results follow from a different set of few axioms, so also in philosophy the differences on many things can be seen to arise from differences on a few key questions. This means that if you seek truth you can now look only at these key questions and consider who has the better case on them. Once you have made the choice, many important consequences have already been worked out for you by hard-thinking philosophers.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
There's philosophy for children too - a schools programme.

Philosophy4Children

I rather like the look of it.

They hope to help children -

•To learn to think before they speak and give reasons for what they say.
•To value their views and the views of others.
•Not take things personally.
•To learn respect and negotiation.
•To learn not to be fearful.
I like the look of it too. Shouldn't it be a required discipline at secondary-school level?

French children famously study Philosophy at school. Are the above attitudes better developed in them than in British (or other) children?

Posted by Cenobite (# 14853) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
There's philosophy for children too - a schools programme.

Philosophy4Children

I rather like the look of it.

They hope to help children -

•To learn to think before they speak and give reasons for what they say.
•To value their views and the views of others.
•Not take things personally.
•To learn respect and negotiation.
•To learn not to be fearful.

I've seen this in action in a Primary School setting (Year 5: 9-10 year olds). For that class, it certainly did all of the above, and the class teacher told me that it had resulted in improved behaviour outside the classroom as well as in (for example, in settling playground disputes). It had also had positive effects on the self-worth of a number of children. It needs a trained practitioner who knows what they are doing for it to be truly effective, but it is definitely valuable IMHO.

For myself, I studied Philosophy as my degree subject. Fascinating study involving many, many different topics, and enhanced my life skills in a number of ways, not least in everything which Ariel outlined.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

A certain Christian prisoner long ago wrote that philosophy is a consolation. That's good enough for me.

In the same spirit, a rather whimsical film about Wittgenstein shows Plato as advising, "Get married! If you're lucky, you'll be a happy man. If not, you'll become a philosopher."

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cenobite:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
There's philosophy for children too - a schools programme.

Philosophy4Children

I rather like the look of it.

They hope to help children -

•To learn to think before they speak and give reasons for what they say.
•To value their views and the views of others.
•Not take things personally.
•To learn respect and negotiation.
•To learn not to be fearful.
I've seen this in action in a Primary School setting (Year 5: 9-10 year olds). For that class, it certainly did all of the above, and the class teacher told me that it had resulted in improved behaviour outside the classroom as well as in (for example, in settling playground disputes). It had also had positive effects on the self-worth of a number of children. It needs a trained practitioner who knows what they are doing for it to be truly effective, but it is definitely valuable IMHO.

For myself, I studied Philosophy as my degree subject. Fascinating study involving many, many different topics, and enhanced my life skills in a number of ways, not least in everything which Ariel outlined.

now THAT should be on the national curriculum

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
At a basic level, philosophy asks three questions: "What is there?" (Metaphysics), "How do we know?" (Epistemology) and "What should we do about it?" (Ethics).

And the prize for nutshellification* goes to... [Smile]

Putting it in these terms, I guess the "critical thinking" that's beginning to be taught in UK schools would mostly focus on epistemology, if the subject actually addresses what it says it does. Where, I wonder, would you put the branch of philosophy that deals with language (as Ariel noted)? Under "What is there?", I suppose, though my mid-morning meandering thoughts incline me to think that the question then becomes, "There is ... what?"

*(Putting something in a nutshell, obviously!)

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

4. Linguistics/semiotics

Actually, when it comes to language, there are issues of both communication and meaning - i.e. both what something means to an individual and how any internally understood meaning can be symbolised so that the experiencer is clear about what is being experienced, and that can also be conveyed adequately to a second person. This is surprisingly difficult.

[ 27. November 2014, 10:51: Message edited by: itsarumdo ]

Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :

This quote by R.G.Chesterwood is from the preface of a most enlightening book by Johathan Glover, Humanity 1999.

quote:
The chief business of twentieth century philosophy is to reckon with twentieth century history,

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
There's philosophy for children too - a schools programme.

Philosophy4Children

I rather like the look of it.

They hope to help children -

•To learn to think before they speak and give reasons for what they say.
•To value their views and the views of others.
•Not take things personally.
•To learn respect and negotiation.
•To learn not to be fearful.
I like the look of it too. Shouldn't it be a required discipline at secondary-school level?

I taught it as an enrichment subject for several years in secondary.

Some of the skills and aptitudes are also covered in RE.

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

Ah, yes, there's a link on the site to the application of philosophy in schools to mathematics, science, history,geography, reading, writing, speaking and listening. Wish I'd had some 60 years ago!

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

There seem to be a few separate questions here, albeit related ones:

1. What is the point of philosophy—what is it supposed to do, what are its aims and methods, what distinguishes it from other disciplines?

2. What is philosophy good for—what can you do with it, what has it given us, why bother philosophizing?

3. Why bother with a philosophical approach—rather than, say, a theological, scientific/materialist, political, or hedonistic one?

I've ended up having to explain these quite a few times to people over the last, oh, 13 years or so, ever since I started telling people I wanted to major in philosophy when I went to college. The metaphilosophical questions can go on for centuries—but, I'd argue, that's because they keep being redefined in every age.

PPE, for instance. Yes, I know that's an Oxford thing, but I knew people at my undergrad university who de facto did PPE—they just called it "getting a free PoliSci double major by taking philosophy courses, how cool is that!" Tulsa was shameless about cross listing philosophy classes—I think my natural law course was taught by a religion prof and cross listed in the polisci department and the law school as well—so we had a lot of people who were doing "philosophy and X."

That's the thing with philosophy—it deals with everything. Half the time, as in the cases of politics, economics, physics, mathematics, biology, linguistics, logic, critical theory, anthropology, and theology, it's because, at one time or another, those studies were considered branches of philosophy. Okay, granted, theology is a bit of a tricky one (yes, the terms "theology," "divine science," and "ontotheology" have been used as synonyms for metaphysics, but...), and what Aristotle meant by "physics" is more like today's "philosophy of nature," but still. There are long intellectual traditions that endure today that started in philosophy.

As for the accusation that we've been philosophizing for 2500 years and have nothing to show for it: please. That's the most historically ignorant thing someone could ever say. First, we've been philosophizing a lot longer than that—get out of your Eurocentric, "it all started with Socrates!" blinkered viewpoint already.

Second, if you think philosophy never made any difference to the world, I point you towards the effects John Locke, Rousseau, Mill, and Voltaire had on the world in the late 18th century. The ideals on which the American and French revolutions were founded came from philosophers. If it weren't for Hegel, Marx, and Nietzche, 1917 might have been just another year in Romanov Russia. Without Nietzche, what of Wagner? Without Schopenhauer, what of Beethoven? Without German Idealism, what of Mahler? Without Alain Locke, what of the Harlem Renaissance?

As for why take the philosophical approach—well, other than leading the life not worth living, you can't help but take it! Yes, there are many philosophies, many branches, many philosophical approaches—including a few radically materialist, "scientific" ones popular today that claim to abolish the need for philosophy—but these are still philosophical approaches. To try to work out the problems of life, logic, and existence, to say "this is a way to find the answers to these questions," that is a philosophical approach. To pick one way over another, to choose empiricism over or along with revelation, to consciously follow duties rather than pleasures or habits, these are philosophical decisions.

To put it bluntly, even if we choose to call it something else, we can't help but philosophize.

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
A certain Christian prisoner long ago wrote that philosophy is a consolation. That's good enough for me.

In the same spirit, a rather whimsical film about Wittgenstein shows Plato as advising, "Get married! If you're lucky, you'll be a happy man. If not, you'll become a philosopher."

That wouldn't be the author of Utopia by any chance? A work which certainly exhibited a willingness to listen and learn, and not take things personally - or at any rate not too seriously. But when it came to religious conflict (I'm thinking of William Tyndale, not Henry V111) More has his gloves off (and so does WT).

From most of the posts above, philosophy seems to be the preserve of reasonable human beings.
What is it about (?) small differences in religious belief that means they can only be settled by fire, sword and blood?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
A certain Christian prisoner long ago wrote that philosophy is a consolation.
That wouldn't be the author of Utopia by any chance?

No. He's talking about Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
If it weren't for Hegel, Marx, and Nietzche, 1917 might have been just another year in Romanov Russia.

Marx, had he been aware of later disciplinary boundaries, would have preferred to see himself as an economist than a philosopher. (He owes as much to Malthus and Ricardo as he does to Hegel.)

quote:
Without Nietzche, what of Wagner? Without Schopenhauer, what of Beethoven?

A bit time-travelly? Wagner owes a lot to Schopenhauer. Beethoven was just starting his late period when World as Will and Representation came out.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
If it weren't for Hegel, Marx, and Nietzche, 1917 might have been just another year in Romanov Russia.

Hegel, Marx, and Nietzsche all post-date the French Revolution, and yet they managed to have a Revolution without them. Because when people get fed up enough with oppression and injustice, bad things happen. That has nothing to do with philosophy. Philosophers may give them categories to use to describe their plight, but they don't create the plight, and they don't create the backlash.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Hegel, Marx, and Nietzsche all post-date the French Revolution, and yet they managed to have a Revolution without them.

I think one could argue that without Marx, the Russians would have had a different revolution. (Or rather, they'd only have had one revolution, the February.) For that matter, without Locke and Rousseau the French Revolution might have taken a different course.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Hegel, Marx, and Nietzsche all post-date the French Revolution, and yet they managed to have a Revolution without them.
I think one could argue that without Marx, the Russians would have had a different revolution. (Or rather, they'd only have had one revolution, the February.) For that matter, without Locke and Rousseau the French Revolution might have taken a different course.

Sure, but "it would have been just another year in Romanov Russia" is saying the Revolution wouldn't have happened at all. A revolution taking a different course, and a revolution not happening at all, are two quite different things. My point is that you can't hang the fact of revolution on philosophy or philosophers, as Ariston appears to be doing.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think mousethief is right, and I think Marx would have agreed with him. Something like: "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness."

Thus, the French Revolution wasn't caused by Robespierre's ideas about reason and liberty, but (in part) by the collapse of feudalism and the rise of the new bourgeois class.

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
There's philosophy for children too - a schools programme.

Philosophy4Children

I rather like the look of it.

They hope to help children -

•To learn to think before they speak and give reasons for what they say.
•To value their views and the views of others.
•Not take things personally.
•To learn respect and negotiation.
•To learn not to be fearful.
That would probably be about my speed.

There's nothing wrong with using simplified or children's resources to help us learn, like reading children's books in a foreign language. I myself have no shame in using Simple English Wikipedia if I have trouble grasping a subject.

Right now I'm reading Mortimer Adler's Aristotle for Everybody because I need a relatively simple introduction to Aristotle and so that I can eventually read Aquinas. I'll probably check out the link to Philosophy4Children and see what I can glean from it too.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think mousethief is right, and I think Marx would have agreed with him. Something like: "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness."

Thus, the French Revolution wasn't caused by Robespierre's ideas about reason and liberty, but (in part) by the collapse of feudalism and the rise of the new bourgeois class.

Or, in brief, Robespierre was a symptom, not an etiology.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0