• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why Is Philosophy Important?

RandFan

Mormon Atheist
RandFan
Joined
Dec 18, 2001
Messages
60,135
Every so often someone comes on the forum to make the claim that philosophy is nothing more than navel gazing. I can only respond that if this is your take on philosophy then you really don't even know what philosophy is.

Let's start of with the question, "why is philosophy important?"

Understand that the question and any arguments in support of any answer are philosophical. So, to even explore whether or not philosophy is important is to engage in philosophy.

Let's ask another question, why do humans engage in scientific inquiry? Why do humans seek to understand the natural world? I submit that any answer to that question will always, inevitably, lead to a philosophical one. You might answer, "to better our lives." Ok, why do we want to better our lives? You could answer, "because we evolved to want to better our lives". Fine, that is a scientific answer but it doesn't really tell us why it just tells us the mechanism as to how we came to "want". If that satisfies you then fine but it isn't very scientific to suggest there is no reason to explore further.

We are not robots. We are not computers. Humans want, and it can be argued, need to try and understand existence. Many of us want to explore every facet of that existence and in doing so we discover many insights into what it means to be human.

Why do we seek to understand distant planets orbiting distant stars? Is it not as philosophical as it is scientific (ignoring for a moment that science is a branch of philosophy)?

Finally, art (aesthetics), ethics (morality, law) and politics are all branches of philosophy. I suppose there exists scientists who don't care about art or politics but I don't see how they can escape politics and more importantly I can't think of any but sociopaths who truly do not care about ethics.

I don't think many, if any, of us can truly escape philosophy. We might treat it with scorn and contempt but we engage in it often when we don't even realize it.

That's my take. My ego is not too big to have my ideas picked apart. Please, have at it. :)
 
OK, I'm one of those who find philosophy boring. But it seems to me that you're extending the definition of philosophy beyond classical philosophy. By that definition, I can see that it has value. I value science because it seeks to discover what is. Knowledge, just for knowledge's sake is valuable. Extending our understanding of the physical world is valuable. I'm not saying that extending our understanding of the world of ideas is valueless, it just doesn't interest me because nothing concrete can be discovered - it's all supposition and thought. I've never really understood Plato's Cave allegory - maybe I haven't studied enough philosophy, maybe I'm just too shallow to understand. :D

Either way, I'd rather study scientific activity and discoveries than contemplate abstracts.
 
supercorgi said:
OK, I'm one of those who find philosophy boring.
Click to expand...
That's fine but I'm not sure what you mean by that especially in light of your next statement.

But it seems to me that you're extending the definition of philosophy beyond classical philosophy. By that definition, I can see that it has value.
Click to expand...
To be fair, and perhaps precise, the definition of philosophy is somewhat controversial. I would disagree and say that my definition is in fact the classical one but that's fine. Instead of quibbling over definitions of the term "classical philosophy" I propose we stick with "academic philosophy".

Academic philosophy, wiki

Philosophy, in this sense, is the discipline whose subject matter is the most fundamental and general concepts and principles involved in thought, action and reality, whose goal is to discover the absolutely fundamental reason of everything it investigates, and whose method is rational enquiry, or enquiry guided by the canons of rationality.
Click to expand...
If you find that "academic philosophy" is of value then we probably don't have any disagreement.

I value science because it seeks to discover what is.
Click to expand...
How does this differ from what you view as philosophy in your opinion?

Knowledge, just for knowledge's sake is valuable. Extending our understanding of the physical world is valuable. I'm not saying that extending our understanding of the world of ideas is valueless, it just doesn't interest me because nothing concrete can be discovered - it's all supposition and thought. I've never really understood Plato's Cave allegory - maybe I haven't studied enough philosophy, maybe I'm just too shallow to understand. :D

Either way, I'd rather study scientific activity and discoveries than contemplate abstracts.
Click to expand...
I would have to say that philosophy most certainly is not just the study of abstracts though to be sure much of it is abstract. I have an idea of what you mean but I would like to make certain. In his famous thought experiment, Einstein tried to imagine what it was like to ride on a beam of light. This was a purely abstract experiment. Do you think that this process limited in some way Einstein's theory?

I'm curious, are you familiar with the philosophy professor Daniel Dennett?

Thanks for the response BTW.
 
I have a very low opinion of modern philosophy. (And I do know what philosophy is, I had a classical education to start with.) My contention is that Philosophy had produced everything useful it was going to by 1900. By then Science and Mathematics had budded-off as fields in themselves. What we end up with is sophistry, sopilpsism and navel-gazing - and all of it very self-congratulatory.
 
CapelDodger said:
I have a very low opinion of modern philosophy. (And I do know what philosophy is, I had a classical education to start with.) My contention is that Philosophy had produced everything useful it was going to by 1900. By then Science and Mathematics had budded-off as fields in themselves. What we end up with is sophistry, sopilpsism and navel-gazing - and all of it very self-congratulatory.
Click to expand...

Two word rebuttal: Karl Popper

His principle of falsifiability has greatly influenced the continuously developing scientfic method.
 
CapelDodger said:
I have a very low opinion of modern philosophy. (And I do know what philosophy is, I had a classical education to start with.) My contention is that Philosophy had produced everything useful it was going to by 1900. By then Science and Mathematics had budded-off as fields in themselves. What we end up with is sophistry, sopilpsism and navel-gazing - and all of it very self-congratulatory.
Click to expand...
Hey, one person's opinion is as good as any other.

Thanks
 
This thread's title made me think of this site:

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/

And reading that site is partially what led me to my current view of it. It logically finds out some very basic and somewhat obvious stuff, and I'd be lying if I said that it didn't interest me reading a long arse explanation of why things are what they are. However, when a philosopher starts extending all this to say "it is an absolute moral truth that we MUST behave this way or we are illogical animals", you start to lose me. In every case, I read the "basics" of some philosophy and it all works out fine, but the second they extend it to try and "prove" this or that ethical, aesthetical, or political viewpoint as "the only rational choice ever'd", I start picking it apart, seeing problems with it, and noting above all that there are vast differences and no popular consensus on ANY of that. What reason do I have to listen to any of it?

For example, that particular site goes on about how everyone, no matter how illogically they act, MUST always be allowed to do as they will save when it endangers others. I can agree with that but only to a point. That point is children. The logical extension is that children should also be allowed to hurt themselves and should never be obstructed from, say, putting their hand on a hot burner because it defies their will and they aren't hurting anyone else. At the very least, it means that's poorly thought out. At most, it says that our moral sense is primarily beastial anyway, driven by evolution, and it's just fine if we decide to not worry about "internal logical consistency".

So yeah, I consider philosophy "cute", and in areas of pure rational thought, sure it can offer some answers. Unfortunately, it over extends itself. Science may not be able to answer the questions of morality or aesthetics, but from what I've seen, neither can philosophy. I'd say logic itself fails in those regards. It's really just a mental programming.
 
Dark Jaguar said:
This thread's title made me think of this site:

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/

And reading that site is partially what led me to my current view of it. It logically finds out some very basic and somewhat obvious stuff, and I'd be lying if I said that it didn't interest me reading a long arse explanation of why things are what they are. However, when a philosopher starts extending all this to say "it is an absolute moral truth that we MUST behave this way or we are illogical animals", you start to lose me. In every case, I read the "basics" of some philosophy and it all works out fine, but the second they extend it to try and "prove" this or that ethical, aesthetical, or political viewpoint as "the only rational choice ever'd", I start picking it apart, seeing problems with it, and noting above all that there are vast differences and no popular consensus on ANY of that. What reason do I have to listen to any of it?

For example, that particular site goes on about how everyone, no matter how illogically they act, MUST always be allowed to do as they will save when it endangers others. I can agree with that but only to a point. That point is children. The logical extension is that children should also be allowed to hurt themselves and should never be obstructed from, say, putting their hand on a hot burner because it defies their will and they aren't hurting anyone else. At the very least, it means that's poorly thought out. At most, it says that our moral sense is primarily beastial anyway, driven by evolution, and it's just fine if we decide to not worry about "internal logical consistency".

So yeah, I consider philosophy "cute", and in areas of pure rational thought, sure it can offer some answers. Unfortunately, it over extends itself. Science may not be able to answer the questions of morality or aesthetics, but from what I've seen, neither can philosophy. I'd say logic itself fails in those regards. It's really just a mental programming.
Click to expand...
Great link. Thanks. Good post BTW.
 
Basically I'm saying that the most we can say is why we behave the way we do or find certain things moral or beautiful. The universe doesn't seem to have any absolute "how it SHOULD be" answers though.

I must agree that if philosophy is defined as "world view", it is very nearly inescapable. I say "nearly" because I escape it during dreamless sleep and eventually in death :D.
 
Dark Jaguar said:
This thread's title made me think of this site:

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/
Click to expand...

I had no idea "aesthetics" can also be spelled "esthetics". Seems to be much less-widely used.

I'll need to give the site a closer look, but at the very bottom of the home page lies this gem:

The content of this website is primarily based on Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism.
Click to expand...

I admit I need to brush up on Objectivism, but I was under the impression it was mostly a load of garbage. Wikipedia seems to agree:

Most academic philosophers have long considered Objectivism to be a pop philosophy and unworthy of their attention. For example, David Sidorsky, professor of philosophy at Columbia University, characterizes Rand's work as "outside the mainstream of philosophical works," and more of an ideological movement than a well-grounded philosophy, which explains in part why it isn't more widely taught.[15] In recent years, however, there are signs that this is beginning to change, with the publication of several academic books on Rand and the creation of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.[16] That said, there are only two Objectivist philosophers, Tara Smith and James Lennox holding tenured positions at one of the top fifteen leading American philosophy departments (University of Texas at Austin and University of Pittsburgh).[17] Some academics have concluded that some of its central claims are demonstrably false.[18] Others have argued that even if specific Objectivist claims are correct, Objectivist arguments are fallacious. For example, Robert Nozick, a prominent libertarian philosopher, largely agreed with Rand on political issues but did not find her argument for ethical naturalism persuasive.[19]
Click to expand...
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Two word rebuttal: Karl Popper

His principle of falsifiability has greatly influenced the continuously developing scientfic method.
Click to expand...
No it hasn't. His work has no practical application. The idea of falsifiability goes back to sceptic Greeks, Popper does rewords it - a common exercise in modern philosophy. He dismisses induction, which underlies most of modern science (and all of technology). I don't think many scientists pay Popper much attention these days, although philosophers may well do.
 
Cosmo said:
I had no idea "aesthetics" can also be spelled "esthetics". Seems to be much less-widely used.

I'll need to give the site a closer look, but at the very bottom of the home page lies this gem:

I admit I need to brush up on Objectivism, but I was under the impression it was mostly a load of garbage. Wikipedia seems to agree:
Click to expand...
Rand certainly lacks the rigor to justify her views as academic philosophy. I think that misses the point though. Rand is valued more in her insights into human behavior. I see Rand more as a Dostoevsky or Orwell. Perhaps a mirror to Lenin except Lenin wrote essays and Rand, like Dostoevsky and Orwell wrote fiction. I don't at all think that it is a load of garbage.
 
CapelDodger said:
No it hasn't. His work has no practical application. The idea of falsifiability goes back to sceptic Greeks, Popper does rewords it - a common exercise in modern philosophy. He dismisses induction, which underlies most of modern science (and all of technology). I don't think many scientists pay Popper much attention these days, although philosophers may well do.
Click to expand...
Capel, it's nice that you have opinions and are willing to share but I hope you understand that opinions are not argument and yours are not at all persuasive. Further, I don't think Popper's point was to dismiss induction but merely to deal with Hume's problem of Induction and to illustrate the difference between induction and deduction.

Among his contributions to philosophy is his answer to David Hume's Problem of Induction. Hume stated that just because the sun has risen every day for as long as anyone can remember, doesn't mean that there is any rational reason to believe it will come up tomorrow. There is no rational way to prove that a pattern will continue on just because it has before.

Popper's reply is characteristic, and ties in with his criterion of falsifiability. He states that while there is no way to prove that the sun will come up, we can theorize that it will. If it does not come up, then it will be disproven, but since right now it seems to be consistent with our theory, the theory is not disproven. Thus, Popper's demarcation between science and non-science serves as an answer to an old logical problem as well.
Click to expand...
 
CapelDodger said:
No it hasn't. His work has no practical application. The idea of falsifiability goes back to sceptic Greeks, Popper does rewords it - a common exercise in modern philosophy. He dismisses induction, which underlies most of modern science (and all of technology). I don't think many scientists pay Popper much attention these days, although philosophers may well do.
Click to expand...

His work helped to reshape scientific inquiry. Of course it drew on earlier philosophers.
 
RandFan said:
I'm curious, are you familiar with the philosophy professor Daniel Dennett?

Thanks for the response BTW.
Click to expand...

I admit, I haven't read much of modern philosophy. I need to read some Dennett and maybe some others (can you suggest some?). My view is mainly anthropolgical. I observe what cultures do, how they adapt. How their philosophies fit thier lives. To me it seems that much of classical philosophy deals with ideals, with memes, and not always the real world. In different cultures there are certainly memes, what Jung and Cambell, labeled as archetypes. These are lasting and form the ideals of a culture.
 
RandFan said:
? Odd, what has most science done for you? I find this a bit arrogant. When did your self centered needs become the demarcation of value?
Click to expand...
To put it another way, what's he ever produced that's of any practical significance? I've read some of his writing on the mind and I found it completely unenlightening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom