What is the practical implication of philosophy?

philologos

I'm hoping to start a more open ended topic. Philosophy is something I enjoy doing, I enjoy probing into each area of life and asking about it. A common question I am asked is why do I do philosophy? Sure aren't there no practical implications for what we studying it? Must philosophy be useful? Can it be useful?

Personally I don't think that philosophy has to be useful but it by nature is. Over the weekend I was reading some of the work of Jürgen Habermas on communicative reason and discourse ethics and this does make me think that philosophy can have a role in forming pluralist societies and in learning how to give way to alternative and different forms of thought to our own. Indeed, moral philosophy would make one probe into what is best to do.

I guess what I am trying to ask is does philosophy have practical indications? Or does it have to have practical indications? In what way is philosophy significant or important?

Batchkid

The practical nature of philosophy speaks for itself. Those who are interested in philosophical debates tend to be more open-minded people. It challenges people to their peak thinking capacity, it helps the brain become more divergent, it helps people realise what they need to do in life, it helps you see that things may not be the way they originally seemed to be or were explained. You will become less susceptible to obedience, persuasion and influence.

The problem in my opinion is; the current education system doesn't do this to people. Education doesn't test your brain, it proves who can remember information more efficiently.
Schools may aswell tell you it's your fault that you can't give an account of a story as good as someone else. It doesn't make you a better person, it separates people, makes you competitive, you try to do/be better than other people. It's all about individuality, even though it's proven that 2 brains are better than 1. Copying is wrong in school, but when you start working, it's called collaboration. See the problem? Education does not teach you how to live and appreciate your life, philosophy does.

alex73

If you understand philosophy you can understand society. Its a shame in Ireland that there is practically no philosophy taught, (I mean in a structured way). The problem I suppose is that per se philosophy won't but bread on the table, but it does give a person a more rounded education, Instead of having peoples minds filled with media tribble and killing peoples ability to challenge views critically.

abelard

My knowledge of philosophy is confined to jurisprudence and philosophy of science, but in each case my legal/scientific thinking improved as a result of studying and understanding the philosophy at the root of these systems.

I believe systems a huge part of our lives, be they legal, scientific, political, social, moral or otherwise. We are born into these systems, function within them, but tend not to question them. Understanding the philosophy behind these systems lets us question them and hopefully change them for the better, or at least understand the implications and limitations of working within them.

Joe1919

One criticism that traditionally is made against philosophy is that it often leads to a scepticism and this can lead to a lack of positive action.

'To much analysis is paralysis'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis

janja93

Joe1919 wrote: »

One criticism that traditionally is made against philosophy is that it often leads to a scepticism and this can lead to a lack of positive action.

'To much analysis is paralysis'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis

As seen in Hamlet!

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Your philosophical outlook influences your attitudes and behaviour. It also relates to your views of history and politics.

Cannibal Ox

I came across this the other day and it reminded me of this thread.

Michel Foucault wrote:

There are times in life when the question of knowing if one can think differently than one thinks, and perceive differently than one sees, are absolutely necessary if one is to go on looking and reflecting at all. People will say, perhaps, that these games with oneself would better be left backstage; or, at best, that they might properly form part of those preliminary exercises that are forgotten once they have served their purpose.

But, then, what is philosophy today – philosophical activity, I mean – if not the critical work that thought brings to bear on itself? In what does it consist, if not in the endeavor to know how and to what extent it might be possible to think differently, instead of legitimating what is already known? There is always something ludicrous in philosophical discourse when it tries, from the outside, to dictate to others, to tell them where their truth is and how to find it, or when it works up a case against them in the language of naive positivity. But it is entitled to explore what might be changed, in its own thought, through the practice of a knowledge that is foreign to it.

The “essay” – which should be understood as the assay or test by which, in the game of truth, one undergoes changes, and not as the simplistic appropriation of others for the purpose of communication – is the living substance of philosophy, at least if we assume that philosophy is still what it was in times past, i.e., an “ascesis,” askesis, an exercise of oneself in the activity of thought.

That kind of sums it up for me. It isn't about answers and it isn't about creating a philosophy that will cover everything that has ever been and ever will be. It's about looking at the world differently and creating problems in the process.

Histie

The most obvious relevance is that questions of how we ought to live, i.e., questions of ethics, are philosophical questions. We have many ethical intuitions, but they can be paradoxical, and philosophy aims to make sense of them and resolve the tension amongst them.

At a more abstract level, philosophy as the most fundamental intellectual discipline aiming to resolve problems rationally and free from unnecessary presuppositions can serve as a kind of resort when scientists, psychologists, literary theorists and so on wish to approach certain of their questions without the normal baggage in their respective discipline.

There are also interesting examples of how philosophy has changed the world by accident. For example, the abstract metaphysics of G.W.F. Hegel incorporating such ideas as the unity of opposites and historical purpose was crucial to the ideas lais out by Karl Marx, and by the middle of the 20th century a third of the world's population lived under governments which claimed to be inspired by thise ideas. More recent developments in technical areas of philosophical logic have had an impact on IT.

Supermensch

Semi-relevant;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtPghWHAQfs

I think a lot of the opposition to philosophy, as in people believing it is a waste of time (or more succinctly, 'Intellectual masterbation'), is really aimed at the more metaphysical side of philosophy, and in a way I can kind of understand this view; while I am interested in arguments pertaining to metaphysics, a lot have already been debated for the past 2000 years. But it is wrong to think that that is the scope of philosophy.

Personally, I think philosophy has most relevance in institutions which effect social change. I think that someone who commits themself to philosophy in some way is more equipped to make decisions which affect society (And N.B. I am not making the case that philosophers should be put in charge of society, or that philosophy is, as Plato said, the highest tradition, but that someone who devotes time to thinking is better equipped to make decisions on social change).