Why Is Philosophy Important?

[RandFan]

I think that most people live perfectly good lives without philosophy.

Of course and most people live perfectly good lives without astronomy.

If, on the other hand, you argue that everybody has a worldview and so can't really escape philosophy, then I'd reply that saying that "philosophy is important" bears no more weight than saying "love is important" - a moot point. Besides, philosophy is one of those futile non-exact sciences where my opinion can very well bear the same weight as that of any famous philosopher.

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.

 

[l0rca]

Of course and most people live perfectly good lives without astronomy.

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.

In other words, "im in ur forumz, stealing ur arguments"

 

[l0rca]

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.

I'm skeptical of the totality of this statement. Do you have any sources or reading material you can provide?

 

[RandFan]

In other words, "im in ur forumz, stealing ur arguments"

I'm confused. I'm sorry. Are you saying that our two posts overlap? If so I hadn't read your post until after I responded.

 

[l0rca]

No, I'm just saying I can handle it. I also prefer my approach.

 

[RandFan]

I'm skeptical of the totality of this statement. Do you have any sources or reading material you can provide?

I'm not sure I understand. I'm guessing that you would agree that the founding fathers did not come up with the constitution in a vacuum and that they were educated men who had studied both ancient and modern civilizations.

If so and your objection is to my use of the term rigorous philosophy then I confess that I'm falling back on something my professor told me. I'll have to look further into the matter. I'll withdraw it unless your objection lies elsewhere. On second thought I'll withdraw it anyway.

RandFan

 

[RandFan]

No, I'm just saying I can handle it. I also prefer my approach.

That's cool.

 

[l0rca]

If so and your objection is to my use of the term rigorous philosophy then I confess that I'm falling back on something my professor told me. I'll have to look further into the matter. I'll withdraw it unless your objection lies elsewhere. On second thought I'll withdraw it anyway.

That's what I was on about. You see, the idea for a veto, and checks and balances to form a way to counteract ideas in government actually came from the Iroquois. White people were fond of this idea, but real revolution in the Spanish government at the time was an unreasonable expectation. The new world was a logical place to give it a shot. The American leaders, obviously erudite, probably adopted it.

http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/tribes/iroquioi/iroquoishist.htm

That's why Montezuma was killed by his people. It was decided he represented the white conquerors instead of the will of his own.

 

[EGarrett]

Isn't our entire economic system derived from philosophy on human behavior?

Philosophy leads to lots of practical applications. When you think for thinking's sake, you never know where you might end up or what you might discover.

 

[El Greco]

Of course and most people live perfectly good lives without astronomy.

In the future though this is very probable to change. Not to mention that astronomy alredy helps other sciences like meteorology.

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.

I think that it is pure logic and social conventions what sets the rules and the laws of modern societies. As it was in ancient civilizations as well. It is the society and the necessities of each time that set the background for the philosophers and not the other way around. Democracy certainly did not evolve from the minds of philosophers; it evolved because it was a form of goverment that brings more balance in societies, and this was learned the hard way, through revolutions and wars.

If every philosophical text would somehow vanish and erase from our memories, and if all philosophy schools would close down tomorrow, I doubt our civilization would be affected much. We'd still be able to read history and we'd still be able to use reason and logic to govern our societies.

Furthermore, I don't see how any philosophy graduate helps the world other than perpetuating the teaching of philosophy.

One more thing: The more we learn about the world, the less space there is for philosophers. Lenin and Marx couldn't have the same appeal today. In fact, no political philosophy can have any significant appeal today. Simply because the economic science and statistics have advanced a lot and we are better able to see where certain systems of government would bring us in the future.

 

[RandFan]

I think that it is pure logic and social conventions what sets the rules and the laws of modern societies. As it was in ancient civilizations as well. It is the society and the necessities of each time that set the background for the philosophers and not the other way around.

Democracy certainly did not evolve from the minds of philosophers; it evolved because it was a form of goverment that brings more balance in societies, and this was learned the hard way, through revolutions and wars.

If every philosophical text would somehow vanish and erase from our memories, and if all philosophy schools would close down tomorrow, I doubt our civilization would be affected much. We'd still be able to read history and we'd still be able to use reason and logic to govern our societies.

Furthermore, I don't see how any philosophy graduate helps the world other than perpetuating the teaching of philosophy.

One of us has a real bizarre understanding of philosophy. I'll concede that it could be me. Boy, do I have egg on my face if that is true. We are going to need a replacement for the degree of Ph.D.

What exactly is it that you think philosophy is and how do you divorce it from reason and logic?

One more thing: The more we learn about the world, the less space there is for philosophers. Lenin and Marx couldn't have the same appeal today. In fact, no political philosophy can have any significant appeal today. Simply because the economic science and statistics have advanced a lot and we are better able to see where certain systems of government would bring us in the future.

So you believe that economics and politics are hard sciences? I'm not so sure. In any event, if you are right we can get rid of our political parties since they each represent competing philosophies. I'm curious, scientifically, which ideas are correct?

 

[El Greco]

One of us has a real bizarre understanding of philosophy. I'll concede that it could be me. Boy, do I have egg on my face if that is true. We are going to need a replacement for the degree of Ph.D.

What exactly is it that you think philosophy is and how do you divorce it from reason and logic?

Let's not get into the definition of philosophy for now. Let me just reverse the question: Do you think that reason and logic can't exist without philosophy ? Because in that case there's not much to argue and we revert back to what I called "a moot point". If I have never read philosophy in my life, does this mean I'm unable to reason and think logically ? Or, to put it in another way, are all skeptics philosophers ?

So you believe that economics and politics are hard sciences? I'm not so sure. In any event, if you are right we can get rid of our political parties since they each represent competing philosophies. I'm curious, scientifically, which ideas are correct?

They are not exact sciences, but they are much more exact than what they used to be. Ideas are not adequate by themselves these days. "Socialism" may be a nice word but you have to present some well-thought out and feasible plans to persuade people that it will work.

 

[RandFan]

Let's not get into the definition of philosophy for now. Let me just reverse the question: Do you think that reason and logic can't exist without philosophy ?

Of course. The problem is that once you apply logic and reason to how we should live our lives or structure our societies you have veered into philosophy whether you like it or not.

Because in that case there's not much to argue and we revert back to what I called "a moot point".

If we all viewed the world in the same way and had the same ideas as to how we should interact then I would agree that it is a moot point. The problem is that art, ethics, politics, etc are not hard sciences and there are many competing notions about what is correct.

If I have never read philosophy in my life, does this mean I'm unable to reason and think logically ? Or, to put it in another way, are all skeptics philosophers ?

Sadly they are not rigorous ones and that is the problem, IMO. I wish they were philosophers or at least had a rudimentary understanding of philosophy. Philosophy, in part, is to rigorously question held beliefs and assumptions.

They are not exact sciences, but they are much more exact than what they used to be. Ideas are not adequate by themselves these days. "Socialism" may be a nice word but you have to present some well-thought out and feasible plans to persuade people that it will work.

You will forgive me but I think you make a great argument in favor of politics and ethics being philosophy. I'm not sure why you think well thought out and feasible plans are antithetical to philosophy.

 

[l0rca]

Greco, I don't know why you ignored me for Randfan, since I insisted on him that I argue this instead. So now I'll comment on what I think.

Of course. The problem is that once you apply logic and reason to how we should live our lives or structure our societies you have veered into philosophy whether you like it or not.

Randy's right. If you call philosophy anything else, you're redefining it. You can't not confront the very definition of philosophy here, that's very stupid for obvious reasons, and it seems that's what you're doing. Further, philosophy defines what reason is, and philosophy created logic. Both the art of reasoning and logic owe their strengths and intellectual integrity to philosophy. In fact, so does math and science. And religion.

Because in that case there's not much to argue and we revert back to what I called "a moot point".

I trashed this idea in my reply in about five minutes after you posted it. If you're not going to even try to refute my points on it, then at least don't become an ideologue.

They are not exact sciences, but they are much more exact than what they used to be. Ideas are not adequate by themselves these days. "Socialism" may be a nice word but you have to present some well-thought out and feasible plans to persuade people that it will work.

Anyone who has been following modern science would give you a funny look for this. Modern philosophy has taken a back seat to reasoning and prediction in the world, and I already explained -along with others- what directions philosophy is heading in.

If I have never read philosophy in my life, does this mean I'm unable to reason and think logically ? Or, to put it in another way, are all skeptics philosophers ?

The rules of logic can be learned outside of a philosophical setting, just like science and religion can. Instead, what never reading philosophy in your life seems to make you lack, is a strong understanding or appreciation of it. Frankly, I'm surprised a person who openly admits to never reading philosophy would come into a thread about philosophy, and try to argue against it. You're clearly outside your area of education.

 

[RandFan]

Greco, I don't know why you ignored me for Randfan, since I insisted on him that I argue this instead. So now I'll comment on what I think.

My ego is not too big to step aside but I think I have something to say on the subject. Besides, it's good for me to debate to find the weakneses of my own arguments. But I do think Greco should respond to you.

 

[l0rca]

I welcome you to defend yourself. I think it rude of him to not reply to me, and I don't hold anything against you. But perhaps in a way his ignoring was a compliment.

I usually don't disagree with your arguments Randy, but every now and then I'd prefer you argue things with a bit less wit and facetiousness, and a bit more logic. But I think many of the inane arguments we find here have drove us both somewhat bitter.

 

[El Greco]

Greco, I don't know why you ignored me for Randfan, since I insisted on him that I argue this instead. So now I'll comment on what I think.

Sorry, I honestly didn't see your post. (ETA: The reason being that I directly clicked on the last post and this was RandFan's reply on the second page). But after reading your replies here, I don't exactly regret it. Eg:

I trashed this idea in my reply in about five minutes after you posted it. If you're not going to even try to refute my points on it, then at least don't become an ideologue.

Frankly, I'm surprised a person who openly admits to never reading philosophy would come into a thread about philosophy, and try to argue against it. You're clearly outside your area of education.

Seems like philosophy hasn't helped you much. Did I say that I have not read philosophy, or was it a hypothetical situation I presented ? Exercise for home.

And furthermore, I'll save you the trouble of being surprised again: Since apparently you don't consider me a worthy debater, then I'll let you talk with other, more up to your level posters.

 

[l0rca]

LOL?

Thanks.

 

[El Greco]

Of course. The problem is that once you apply logic and reason to how we should live our lives or structure our societies you have veered into philosophy whether you like it or not.

So what you are basically saying is that if you think logically about anything of a certain magnitude, then it's philosophy. Well, I'm glad we didn't venture into the definition of philosophy then.

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" ?

If we all viewed the world in the same way and had the same ideas as to how we should interact then I would agree that it is a moot point. The problem is that art, ethics, politics, etc are not hard sciences and there are many competing notions about what is correct.

And those competing notions are competing philosophies ? You said before that Lenin's philosophy was clearly wrong. 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.

Sadly they are not rigorous ones and that is the problem, IMO. I wish they were philosophers or at least had a rudimentary understanding of philosophy. Philosophy, in part, is to rigorously question held beliefs and assumptions.

So "rigorous skepticism" = "philosophy" ? Is that what you're saying ?

You will forgive me but I think you make a great argument in favor of politics and ethics being philosophy. I'm not sure why you think well thought out and feasible plans are antithetical to 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 ?

 

[hammegk]

So what you are basically saying is that if you think logically about anything of a certain magnitude, then it's philosophy. Well, I'm glad we didn't venture into the definition of philosophy then.

One can see why you prefer to avoid it, philosopher.

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 ...