• 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?

hammegk said:
One can see why you prefer to avoid it, philosopher.
Click to expand...

Can s/he ?

hammegk said:
Using 'you' in the generic sense, you may be self-taught in the school of life, but philosopher you are, and your answers to questions philosophers continue to ponder could in no way be separated from who and what you are. And should you not like who and what you are, you will use philosophic reasoning to make changes.

Just my 2cts ...
Click to expand...

In that case, if that's what you think, I refer you to the paragraph right after the one you quoted.
 
l0rca said:
LOL?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

You are welcome. When someone uses phrases like "I trashed your argument" (even if he has really done so), it's a sure sign that any discussion with him will be futile.
 
Off the cuff I would say philosophy isn't important but then I started thinking about it.

I do have a philosophy about philosophy though. That is that anyone who studies and reads philosophy should avoid doing it. Their brain is polluted and they'll just regurgitate what they read.

That's my philosophy and I'm sticking to it but you can have it if you want.
 
hammegk said:
I read it, and considered it prior to my response ... philosopher. :)
Click to expand...

Ok, then we have the phenomenon that some of you think I'm a philosopher, others think I shouldn't even be posting here and perhaps still others think I'm just a bad philosopher :D
 
the end of political philosophy

Long time lurker, first time poster. Sorry if this is a little off the current trajectory of the thread – I had to wait until my registration was accepted in order to post.

My $0.02 on the importance of philosophy question:

I can only comment on my particular area of study – political philosophy. I’ve recently become more or less completely disillusioned with the whole field. Encountering Hegel and Kojeve did me in. Those two stretched credulity to the breaking point. I genuinely believe that all that nonsense about the end of history is really just describing the end of philosophy as a useful tool of political enquiry. Teleological determinism and claims for absolute knowledge have a dangerous tendency to get vomited forth as real-world political projects with all the accompanying slaughter and other atrocities. I’m not convinced that the essential insights of the ancients (Plato, Aristotle, etc) have been greatly improved upon by all the sectarian warfare of the post-enlightenment thinkers.

IMHO, Aristotle began and ended political philosophy by classifying us as Zoon Politicon. Not much more can coherently be said. I don’t think it is possible for us to do anything other than form communities, make laws, and squabble amongst ourselves about our various delusions. Questions about the best regime are now more appropriately the province of the methodologists and statisticians – these are better tools of public policy than philosophy is. I started my studies with exactly the opposite premise, and it has been a painful struggle to come to this conclusion. I’m open to changing my mind – can anyone suggest any useful contemporary political philosophy?

To use a really weak analogy, I see the history of political philosophy as mirroring the history of Jazz in the 20th century. Louis Armstrong, King Oliver, etc are equivalent to the ancient Greeks – essential innovations and a certain simple purity. Subsequent artists elaborated successfully on the originals – Basie, Ellington, through Miles, Coltrane, Monk, etc. – mirrored perhaps by the enlightenment thinkers. It all came to an incoherent crashing halt with the free-jazz types like Ornette Coleman and Cecil Taylor – mirrored by the German determinists and nihilists. The limits of expression were reached. Jazz has changed from a vital, important and innovative art form to essentially museum music. (Note: I am a jazz-trained musician). Now you have Wynton Marsalis types who advocate a return to the purity of the originators (Leo Strauss), and various advocates of various periods of the music’s history; nothing really new or relevant is being produced. Ditto for political philosophy.

I think that Cicero really had it right when he said that philosophy “sharpens a little and seems to tickle the minds of boys, so that they can learn greater things more easily”

As usual, all this is just opinion – take it for what it’s worth.

Cheers.

P.S. Perhaps there is still hope for other areas of philosophical enquiry?
 
dlacone said:
I’m not convinced that the essential insights of the ancients (Plato, Aristotle, etc) have been greatly improved upon by all the sectarian warfare of the post-enlightenment thinkers.
Click to expand...

Let me add here that we have conveniently labeled as "great" those ancients that better fit with our current socio-political status.

Anyway, since I don't really disagree with many of RandFan's points, and since it seems to me that it all boils down to the definition of philosophy (which would be pointless to discuss since "great philosophers" themselves have defined it in completely different ways), then perhaps it would be more interesting to focus on this: Is study of philosophy and texts of past philosophers necessary so that one can be a "philosopher" or "rigorous critical thinker" ?
 
El Greco said:
Let me add here that we have conveniently labeled as "great" those ancients that better fit with our current socio-political status.
Click to expand...

Well, it is more or less inevitable that we would privilege the philosophical roots of our version of modernity. I don't think I classified the Greeks as "great" anywhere, however.

Western political philosophy is concerned with describing/prescribing itself, not other cultures, so it makes sense to talk about our own progenitors.
 
Last edited:
El Greco said:
Is study of philosophy and texts of past philosophers necessary so that one can be a "philosopher" or "rigorous critical thinker" ?
Click to expand...

Necessary, no. Helpful, yes. No sense re-inventing the wheel or starting from scratch when others have likely already covered the same ground.
 
RandFan said:
But clearly some philosophies are better than others. The philosophies of Lenin have been so far found to be failures. The philosophy of Rand has been demonstrated to lack rigor. Not all philosophies are equal. Philosophies have evolved. Modern moral and legal philosophies are orders of magnitude ahead of those of the middle ages. The writers of the US Constitution were able to look at the philosophies of the Greeks, Romans, British and others to devise a better philosophy for society. They opted to forgo a monarchy. Not because hard science dictated that a representative Democracy was better but because rigorous philosophy dictated that it was.
Click to expand...

I think that pretty well sums up the importance of philosophy. Its importance rests in paring away bad ideas.

Dark Jaguar skillfully uses Wittgenstein's ideas to pare away at silly philosophical questions, an exercise that I think is a little better than "cute" or "interesting". I think I would call it important.

We can all be as cynical as we like about "philosophy", but we are all constantly engaged in it. It is not philosophy that we hate but certain philosophies (and sometimes philosophers when they join the Nazi party).
 
El Greco said:
Let me ask you something else: If someone who "applies logic and reason to how we should live our lives or structure our societies" can't avoid philosophy "whether he likes it or not", then why start a thread "why is philosophy important" ? Isn't it like asking "why is thinking important" ?
Click to expand...
If people ridiculed thinking then yes.

And those competing notions are competing philosophies ? You said before that Lenin's philosophy was clearly wrong.
Click to expand...
No I didn't. I said "The philosophies of Lenin have been so far found to be failures." First let me state that I misspoke. I meant the philosophies of Marx and Engels and not Lenin. I apologize for any confusion. FWIW, I think Marx, Engels and Lenin had some very important things to say and contribute to politics and economic theory. I hope that they are never taught as simply something that failed. That would be a huge mistake in my mind.

Was there any way to prove that logically at the time ? Because if there was, what was the need for philosophy ? We could have just used logic and reason to prove him wrong.
Click to expand...
? "Prove him wrong"? How would one "prove him wrong"? I don't understand. What do you mean by "prove him wrong"? FWIW, Lenin never had the opportunity to institute his doctrines. After his death Stalin was successful in his power struggle with Trotsky whose views were closer to that of Lenin. I don't think one can honestly say that Lenin or even Marxist philsophy was proven wrong. I stand by original statement with the change from Lenin to Marx and Engels.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not pro-communist at all. I just don't see such philosophies as "wrong" and I see little to be gained by such rhetoric. I would think such a label would be propaganda and not the result of rigorous philosophical analysis and would have no place in political and economic philosophy.

So "rigorous skepticism" = "philosophy" ? Is that what you're saying ?
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying rigorous logic is a part of philosophy.

I never said that philosophy is antithetical to reason, logic and well thought-out plans. You seem to call philosophy the "rational thinking about something great". I'm not going to discuss the definition again, but let me present once more a hypothetical situation: Say I'm someone who hasn't studied or read any philosophy, but I have a degree in economics and history and am also a "rigorous skeptic". How exactly will my lack of philosophical education affect my political or social thinking ?
Click to expand...
A philosophical education could give you far more tools for the job and reduce your learning curve should you decide to involve yourself with politics.

A person doesn't need a degree in business to open a business. It can help though. Often times a person will learn by the seat of their pants what is taught in school. A formal education can assist a person and help that person avoid pitfalls.

When I sold my house I made a lot of dumb mistakes that cost me a lot of money. I wish I would have used a Realtor and benefited by their knowledge. It certainly wasn't necessary though.
 
Oh, and dlaclone, I'm not really a regular here, but welcome. I very much enjoyed your longer post above.
 
Is study of philosophy and texts of past philosophers necessary so that one can be a "philosopher" or "rigorous critical thinker" ?
Click to expand...
According to my own philosophy you cannot be a philosopher if you have studied it. I also think that 'rigorous critical thinker' is an indiviual trait like athletic ability. Some people have it others don't.

Necessary, no. Helpful, yes. No sense re-inventing the wheel or starting from scratch when others have likely already covered the same ground.
Click to expand...
That's the problem. It will stagnate unless the ground is covered fresh each time. It is necessary to reinvent the wheel until we are convinced that we keep getting the same wheel each time.
 
RandFan said:
Not because hard science dictated that a representative Democracy was better but because rigorous philosophy dictated that it was.
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree with this. Rigorous philosophy tended to consider democracy as one of the worst, if not the worst, forms of govt. This is especially true of the Greeks, but it flows all the way to Hobbes and beyond. You can probably make a logical case for representative democracy flowing from classical liberals like Locke, but he was focused on property rights and religious toleration - not democracy. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
I think that pretty well sums up the importance of philosophy. Its importance rests in paring away bad ideas.

Dark Jaguar skillfully uses Wittgenstein's ideas to pare away at silly philosophical questions, an exercise that I think is a little better than "cute" or "interesting". I think I would call it important.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, so long as we don't throw the baby out with the bath water though I'm not personally convinced that they are silly questions but I don't believe that such questions are the only way to achieve the goals that they, the questions, exist for.

We can all be as cynical as we like about "philosophy", but we are all constantly engaged in it. It is not philosophy that we hate but certain philosophies (and sometimes philosophers when they join the Nazi party).
Click to expand...
Yes, well said.
 
dlacone said:
Not sure I agree with this. Rigorous philosophy tended to consider democracy as one of the worst, if not the worst, forms of govt. This is especially true of the Greeks, but it flows all the way to Hobbes and beyond. You can probably make a logical case for representative democracy flowing from classical liberals like Locke, but he was focused on property rights and religious toleration - not democracy. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.
Click to expand...
Thanks, welcome to the forum BTW.

No, you are correct. I have since withdrawn this statement.
 
jimlintott said:
That's the problem. It will stagnate unless the ground is covered fresh each time. It is necessary to reinvent the wheel until we are convinced that we keep getting the same wheel each time.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to suggest that the conclusions of previous thinkers should be accepted blindly, but I think that it is a good idea to have a grasp of what has come before if you are going to engage the same questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom