The purpose of philosophy

[meritocrat]

What's the point of it?!!

If ALL philosophy were eradicated, then tell ME why the world would be worse off!!

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by meritocrat
What's the point of it?!!

If ALL philosophy were eradicated, then tell ME why the world would be worse off!!

All philosophy? Do you mean all philosophy since time began? If so, then we can then say bye-bye to science, technological advances, developments in morality and ethics...in fact, we could say bye-bye to one of the main, defining characteristics of our humanity: our ability to question ourselves, existence, the universe, and everything.

[variant 13]

Nowadays it seems to be picking holes in science and generally going on about crap.

I think that they are given a bit too much credit for stuff, people hear that one has said something and they all go "Ohhhh!"

[DiogenesofSinoppe]

Question 1, what is the point of philosophy?

Well, that is a question that would bring many answers from many different folks. And even from one person (me), I have several different answers because philosophy entails various avenues of thought.

First of all, studying philosophy in college, it aided me in thinking rationally. It helped me use logic and formulate arguments within the framework of logic. In doing so I took opinions that I always held and developed rational arguments for why I hold such opinions. This is only one area in which philosophy as helped me as my many friends and relatives say that since I've been to college (I went late in life) I went from being one who ranted to, now, being someone very persuasive.
This, however, is only one avenue of what philosophy can do for you (or me).

Second, delving into cliche, philosophy is the love and pursuit of wisdom. Wisdom is different from mere "intellect" in that wisdom allows one to know when and how to use one's rational thinking capabilities. An example here would be the times when I get angry. It is a perfectly natural human emotion. Enter rational thinking skills and now I'm able (not always, though) to step back (metaphorically) for a moment and realize just why I am getting angry and how my anger might make things worse in the long or short term. Instead of knee-jerking, I can examine my emotions more critically, but again, not always. Sometimes the anger is either too strong or my rational thinking skills are too weak.
It's been elucidated to me as such: by studying philosophy and the thought of great thinkers in the past, by critically examining what is before you, one may elicit some dormant Truth lying within oneself (enter famous Socrates quote here).
In a nutshell, philosophy allows one to examine their lives. Even when one examines (that is criticizes their beliefs, actions, etc) outside of the educational backdrop, one is "doing" philosophy.
When my mentor lectured on this in class so many years ago, I thought "wow, I started "doing" philosophy at an early age, then."

I could go on ad infinitum, but I think I'll stop the answer to question 1 now.

Question 2 deals with why the world would be worse if such a thing like philosophy never took hold, or never actualized itself the way it has. I could answer this question in many ways, but I'd have to say that we were sort of pre-programmed (if you will) for "doing" philosophy because the rational "aparatus" within the mind will come forth by being exposed to the world of experience.
We were not thrown into this world with an instruction book and so we've had to develop knowledge (or that which can be construed as knowledge) on our own. We've come to understandings about our Being simply through trial and error processes, which is a rudimentary form of philosophical introspection. When encountering any sort of problem, i.e. hunger, it is within our "operating system" (if you will) to solve the problem and look for better and easier ways to solve it. In order to do this we must be critical of our previous actions.
I think someone touched upon this, but without thinking, critical thinking, there would be no ideas. If one studies history long enough, one will easily see the influence of ideas on the progression of events. Where would we be today (or would we "be") if no one had the idea for the wheel?

I'd say without the capacity for critical analysis (which could be "doing" philosophy) I'd say we'd perish as a species.

[JohannGoodflag]

Originally posted by meritocrat
What's the point of it?!!

If ALL philosophy were eradicated, then tell ME why the world would be worse off!!

The point of philosophy is different for each person.

I have absolutely no useful comment whatsoever on philosophy as it is practised academically in the departments of universities. It seems pointless, but then, I may not have acquired a sufficiently refined position personally to see the usefulness of it. At the very least, the philosophy department at my university did a magnificent job of teaching me propositional logic, so I don't begrudge them much.

Philosophy, when properly done, is a personal excercise. One can borrow ideas from others, but it is only useful to do so if it can fit within your worldview. As philosophy is personal, the purpose differs from individual to individual.

My purpose for doing philosophy is twofold. One, I work in mathematics, and philosophy can help me develop intuition about the formal expressions I juggle. Two, I am an atheist with a rather peculiar set of experiences, and philosophy helps me to determine how best to cope with, and get the best out of, my life.

More generally, philosophy does not seem to be any more than thinking about stuff which is not yet a part of any established discipline. As a result, it can easily contain the seeds of a useful discipline before it is recognised as being a useful discipline, and so serve as a birthing ground for new fields of knowledge --- as it did mathematics over two thousand years ago, and modern physics over five hundred years ago. The ideas in these branches often start as little more than ideas or opinions about things in our everyday life, or working rules for solving certain problems which have not been formalized. In that sense, in order to abolish philosophy, we would have to lobotomize every last person on earth.

JohannGoodflag

[Jane Bovary]

Philosophy has a purpose because it asks and attempts to answer questions which seem to go beyond the realm of science...questions of existence, morality, and other mysteries. Science can often only tell us *how*...but not *why*. One of the oldest philosophical question, "why is there something rather than nothing?" remains unanswered. Science can tell us all about the big bang but not why it happened.

Without philosophy we'd only have religion to try and deal with these questions. Is that a good idea...? At least a philosophical theory is required to have a rational justification and at the very least it's good at knocking down ideas which dont stand up to rational scrutiny.

[vodkatini]

philosophy is an activity and we do it because we want or we need a better answer. a better answer leads a better life. that's what economists call constraint maxmization.

[Hugo Holbling]

I guess this kind of thread is partly what i started the intro series for...

[wiploc]

Originally posted by meritocrat
What's the point of it?!!

In the movie Hero the protagonist explains to his son that there are layers of bullshit. When you are a kid, adults tell you stuff that isn't true. When you get older, you figure out that it wasn't true, you climb above that layer of bullshit. The more you grow and mature and develop intellectually, the more often you recognize that you are in a layer of bullshit and climb above it. Eventually, you find a layer where you are comfortable, and then you stay there because, "That's your bullshit."

crc

[nerv111]

We should do well to remember that initially philosophy was but the search for truth; science and philosophy were one as many philosophers attempted to offer explanations of natural phenomenon however wrong they may have been. But this spirit of philosophy gave rise to science, and today’s age science handles questions about nature which can be gained by observations, in the realm of philosophy remain those questions beyond the grasp of science.

[Hugo Holbling]

Here (http://eblaforum.org/main/viewforum.php?f=13) is the ongoing series i created to answer your question, meritocrat. There was no need to shout, even. You are welcome to ask me questions if you are not convinced.

[theophilus]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nerv111
and today’s age science handles questions about nature which can be gained by observations, in the realm of philosophy remain those questions beyond the grasp of science.

Ah, but science tells us nothing about the "nature" of nautre; that's the point.

Naturalistic science (that is the correct term) may provide useful information about how things behave, i.e., it has operational usefulness, but it can NEVER tell us anything about how things ultimately behave or why they do so.

[theophilus]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by vodkatini
philosophy is an activity and we do it because we want or we need a better answer. a better answer leads a better life. that's what economists call constraint maxmization.

This assumes, of course, that there ARE answers, that some are BETTER than others (closer to the truth) and that WE, qua we, have the capacity to know either.

Now, some will suggest that we just assume these things and can never really know for sure, but then it's all just a game, isn't it.

But, hey, why should that get in anybody's way.

[Bellarmino]

Originally posted by nerv111
We should do well to remember that initially philosophy was but the search for truth; science and philosophy were one as many philosophers attempted to offer explanations of natural phenomenon however wrong they may have been. But this spirit of philosophy gave rise to science, and today’s age science handles questions about nature which can be gained by observations, in the realm of philosophy remain those questions beyond the grasp of science.
My view is that when the word "philosophy" originally meant "love of knowledge," it included a lot more than the esoteric and largely isolated discipline that it has become. Philosophy included things like logic and epistemology, but also ethics, mathematics, theology, geometry, astronomy, music, physics, politics, and so forth. A "philosopher" is anybody who is interested in most of those things. The only two that I can live without are formal logic and epistemology.

To agree with what others have said about science -- it can never define or measure the quality of human life. Therefore you will always need something else to govern the conduct and application of science.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by meritocrat
What's the point of it?!!

If ALL philosophy were eradicated, then tell ME why the world would be worse off!!

Forgive me for not seeing this the first time (it seems I'm in good company, though).

Do you not see that the answer is in the question (or were you being clever)?

"Tell me WHY" is a request for an answer that is inescapably philosophical. So, unless you presume something "like" a philosophical approach to understanding, your question would not only be meaningless, it would be impossible to utter.

[Angrillori]

Philosophy allows us to know that when people say things like:

"Ah, but science tells us nothing about the "nature" of nautre; that's the point.

Naturalistic science (that is the correct term) may provide useful information about how things behave, i.e., it has operational usefulness, but it can NEVER tell us anything about how things ultimately behave or why they do so."

it's a load of bunk.

No matter what else its faults, the fact that philosophy includes logic gives it great worth. The understanding of what makes a valid argument, what doesn't, and the ability to understand why a conclusion follows or does not follow from its premises are precious gifts. I would that everyone had at least a smattering appreciation of logic.

[theophilus]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Angrillori
Philosophy allows us to know that when people say things like:

"Ah, but science tells us nothing about the "nature" of nautre; that's the point.

Naturalistic science (that is the correct term) may provide useful information about how things behave, i.e., it has operational usefulness, but it can NEVER tell us anything about how things ultimately behave or why they do so."

it's a load of bunk.

No matter what else its faults, the fact that philosophy includes logic gives it great worth. The understanding of what makes a valid argument, what doesn't, and the ability to understand why a conclusion follows or does not follow from its premises are precious gifts. I would that everyone had at least a smattering appreciation of logic.

Ah, but it's not "philosophical" to simply assert bunkness without showing WHY it is so.

Poor example.

[Bellarmino]

Originally posted by Angrillori
Philosophy allows us to know that when people say things like:

"Ah, but science tells us nothing about the "nature" of nautre; that's the point.

Naturalistic science (that is the correct term) may provide useful information about how things behave, i.e., it has operational usefulness, but it can NEVER tell us anything about how things ultimately behave or why they do so."

it's a load of bunk.

No matter what else its faults, the fact that philosophy includes logic gives it great worth. The understanding of what makes a valid argument, what doesn't, and the ability to understand why a conclusion follows or does not follow from its premises are precious gifts. I would that everyone had at least a smattering appreciation of logic.
Agreed, but this level of logic can be learned by 6th graders. If you know a bright 6th grader, I recommend Lewis Carroll's Book of Logic.

Are there any contemporary problems in philosophy that would be of any interest to a non-specialist? Mind you, I have nothing against learning things for their own sake. After all, I play music that serves no utilitarian purpose. That's what makes us civilized.

[Bellarmino]

Originally posted by theophilus
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Angrillori
Philosophy allows us to know that when people say things like:

"Ah, but science tells us nothing about the "nature" of nautre; that's the point.

Naturalistic science (that is the correct term) may provide useful information about how things behave, i.e., it has operational usefulness, but it can NEVER tell us anything about how things ultimately behave or why they do so."

it's a load of bunk.

No matter what else its faults, the fact that philosophy includes logic gives it great worth. The understanding of what makes a valid argument, what doesn't, and the ability to understand why a conclusion follows or does not follow from its premises are precious gifts. I would that everyone had at least a smattering appreciation of logic.

Ah, but it's not "philosophical" to simply assert bunkness without showing WHY it is so.

Poor example.
It is a good example, because showing why bunk is bunk, is an unsolved philosophical problem :)

[Angrillori]

Originally posted by theophilus
Ah, but it's not "philosophical" to simply assert bunkness without showing WHY it is so.

Poor example.

Hmm, taken another trip to Wrongola have you? It's a perfect example for the question addressed in the OP.

Q: What good is philosophy?
A: It is good to see that theophilus' assertion is bunk.

Question asked and answered. No need to derail this thread. But I appreciate the effort.

[Angrillori]

Originally posted by Bellarmino Are there any contemporary problems in philosophy that would be of any interest to a non-specialist? Mind you, I have nothing against learning things for their own sake. After all, I play music that serves no utilitarian purpose. That's what makes us civilized.

Hmm, good point and question. Not being a philosopher, I don't know what contemporary problems are being dealt with. But I guess that's an answer in and of itself. I have an idea of contemporary problems in physics, biology, economics, and to a lesser degree math, because they impact my life somewhat.

I imagine ethics is a philosophic branch that's still very active among upper level philosophers and definitely is useful to the world. At least the media makes it seem so. A new "The Ethics of X" news story seems to appear daily.

[Bellarmino]

Originally posted by Angrillori
Hmm, good point and question. Not being a philosopher, I don't know what contemporary problems are being dealt with. But I guess that's an answer in and of itself. I have an idea of contemporary problems in physics, biology, economics, and to a lesser degree math, because they impact my life somewhat.

I imagine ethics is a philosophic branch that's still very active among upper level philosophers and definitely is useful to the world. At least the media makes it seem so. A new "The Ethics of X" news story seems to appear daily.
Even physics -- there are practical problems such as lasers but also many impractical problems such as cosmology.

In terms of ethics -- again, has anything new happened in the last 200 years?

[John Page]

Originally posted by Hugo Holbling
I guess this kind of thread is partly what i started the intro series for...
Ah! Philosophy as an response to evolutionary reward for mental activity?

[meritocrat]

Originally posted by Luiseach
All philosophy? Do you mean all philosophy since time began? If so, then we can then say bye-bye to science, technological advances, developments in morality and ethics...in fact, we could say bye-bye to one of the main, defining characteristics of our humanity: our ability to question ourselves, existence, the universe, and everything.

So philosophy is somehow inherent??

If so, why is it so difficult to define?

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by meritocrat
So philosophy is somehow inherent??

What drives philosophy is, perhaps, intrinsically 'human'. We're a curious species...we ask questions.

Philosophy, in a nutshell admittedly, is the science or art of asking questions, seeking answers, fulfilling our need to know.

If so, why is it so difficult to define?

Because the question of what philosophy is is itself a philosophical question.

[sophie]

For me, philosophy is all about finding out what is apriori to human life. From this perspective I would be able to show that the purpose of life is to acquire collections.

[John Page]

Originally posted by sophie
....I would be able to show that the purpose of life is to acquire collections.
...because.....

;) John

[Angrillori]

Originally posted by Bellarmino
Even physics -- there are practical problems such as lasers but also many impractical problems such as cosmology.

In terms of ethics -- again, has anything new happened in the last 200 years?

I think many would disagree with you that cosmology is impractical.

But as for ethics in the last 200 years, as science moves forward, we have new questions for the philosophers. To use the obvious: cloning, stem cell research, gene therapy, etc. etc. etc.

These lead to more questions and we keep our philosophers useful. :)

I don't imagine a time when "The ethics of X" won't be an important item to ponder.

[sophie]

John Page : ...because..... The great because question necessitates a paper type answer which is beyond reach at the moment, but for the meantime think about the natural aggregations of life.

[list=1]
Growth.
Memories.
Give - Recieve.
()
[/list=1]

[John Page]

Originally posted by sophie
[list=1]
()
[/list=1]
I like that. How about just:

(

This signifies an open, unspecified function that may or may not return a value.

Cheers, John

[Bellarmino]

Originally posted by Angrillori
I think many would disagree with you that cosmology is impractical.

But as for ethics in the last 200 years, as science moves forward, we have new questions for the philosophers. To use the obvious: cloning, stem cell research, gene therapy, etc. etc. etc.

These lead to more questions and we keep our philosophers useful. :)

I don't imagine a time when "The ethics of X" won't be an important item to ponder.
By the way, don't get me wrong -- I love philosophy. We are engaging in philosophy right now :)

It's a good point that new ethical questions come up, but do philosophers serve any useful purpose in answering those questions? Let's turn back the clock just a wee bit, since the problems you cite are too new. Imagine when in vitro fertilization was an ethical question. How was it resolved? Not by philosophers, but merely by fiat. It became possible, then people started doing it, and now it is old news.

My prediction about human cloning is that right now it's impossible, so philosophers can debate about it. If and when it becomes possible, the philosophers will simply be ignored.

About the definition of philosophy -- this is difficult because it has changed over the past 2500 years. Physics used to be part of philosophy, now it is a separate field. Philosophy consists of what remains -- logic, epistemology, and ethics. Did I forget anything? Maybe cosmology and linguistics.

And it occurs to me that philosophy is not about answers, but about questions. One could define it as the study of the debate of questions that have no answers. The questions and answers don't change, but "progress" consists of refinement and invention of new debates.

This is not a slam against philosophy. It is hard to come up with good questions.

[Colander of Truth]

Originally posted by meritocrat
What's the point of it?!!

If ALL philosophy were eradicated, then tell ME why the world would be worse off!!

Understand the etymology orf the word and you'll have it.

Philosophy is love of wisdom. Eliminate it and Texas will be very crowded.