Is there a point in philosophising?

Jimmeny

Hi

About a year ago I joined the 'new acropolyse' group in Dublin . Its kinda of a philosophy study setup that gives you an overview of the worlds major religions and philosophies. I did the intro course but towards the end I couldn't help fealing that it was all just a intellectual exercise. I was spending three hours a week listening to lectures on all manner of interesting brain fodder. A couple of things really bugged me though.

Firstly - it was just that - brain fodder. It was fun thinking about the different concepts. I've no doubt that it in some way changed my thinking on various topics. Ultimatly though - I felt it was a somewhat selfish exercise. I was getting to pat myself on the back for learning new concepts and ideas. There is a kind of a intellectual snobbery in knowing stuff that other people don't. I don't like being like that however. I mean - with all the trouble in the world - wouldn't I have been better just spending time with my friends and family?

The thing that really bugged me was definatly an agenda being promoted. There was much talk of how Plato (could be wrong - feel free to correct) thought that philosphising was the best use of your time. It was the highest human endeavour. This croud were fairly fond of quoting that. You can see why. I you can convince people that coming to their class is the perfect expression of human existance - they are gonna harvest a load of reliable recruits. As far as I can see - there was a selfish intent in promoting philosophy as a worthwhile pasttime. For starters - it agrandised those who had learned more than others. It meant that there was more money flowing into the coffers and ultimatly it helped to keep the who organisation alive. I guess this is fine. In order to hold the classes and pay the bills - you need a system that will make sure people attend. If only this was explained. No one ever admitted that the whole thing was 'fun' - and interesting thing to do with your time and that promoting philosophy as something higher was necessary to encourange better attendance.

So what is my question?

Am I not better just living my life well - as millions of people seem to be able to do - without 'waisting time' thinking about concepts that are really for my own amusement. I feel that if philosophy was presented in an honest fashion - as a mind trinket - would have more popularity.

Thanks for Reading

James

irlirishkev

It was Beethoven who said -

"Music is a higher revelation than philosophy"

Therefore.. Just chill and listen to some good music dude.. Don't stress out over it!

K.

PurpleFistMixer

That group was presenting philosophy in general in a bad light certainly, but there's no reason to go off saying philosophy is a waste of time. Okay it may seem like a pointless way to spend time - thinking about things, but what makes other activities any more pointful? Why does anyone do anything? Why would say, playing football be any more worthwhile than philosophising? They're both ways to spend time, they can both be enjoyable. And they both have end results. Philosophising is almost like a kind of meditation - you can get a better picture of how you perceive the world and how you accept certain things through it.

I myself like philosophy because I like the discussions that can come from it.

simu

Call it prejudice on my part but I suspect that any group that calls itself "New Apocalypse" might have other motives apart from teaching you the basics of philosophy.

While studying philosophy can be an enjoyable intellectual experience, there's a bit more to it than that. To give a pretty obvious example, where do you think the ideas of equality and democracy that have made life more bearable and even enjoyable for many (not all but I'm not getting into that here) people in today's world first originate?

SkepticOne

I think it is called the New Acropolis. It seems to be an attempt at a revival of Plato's Academy although not much is given on their web page. Philosophy in those days was just as much about general knowledge of science and humanities, though, as well as more abstract ideas. His student, Aristotle, wrote books on midwifery, animals, physics as well as metaphysics. I read somewhere that metaphysics was simply the name, for want of a better one, his students gave to the book that came after the one called 'Physics' when they were collating his work - hence after-physics.

Fysh

But if you accept that philosophy is the art and love of thinking itself and enjoy it for that reason, rather than for the notion of being better than other people because you know about it, then this wouldn't be a problem. I'm wondering what sort of subjects you've covered that makes you think philosophy is just about "brain trinkets" - subjects like ethics and politics have been discussed extensively by philosophers, as well as scientific problems. For many people, such concerns are part of their everyday lives, since they may well influence or dictate certain courses of action.

I have to admit, I've always felt a bit uneasy about the Greek philosophers' tendency to glorify those who sought knowledge as being somehow inherently better than other people, but it doesn't overly concern me because I don't do that myself. I don't read philosophy books because they give me some edge over other people; I read them because they interest me, I enjoy the intellectual challenge they present, and I never know when I'm going to stumble across some idea or new perspective that may be useful in my day-to-day life. If you don't have an interest in it, don't bother.

It seems that you basically think philosophers are all lazy navel-gazers, and tbh I'd assume this is more due to the course you took than the nature of philosophy itself. I mean, if you took an art class and got some pretentious ponce as a teacher who kept going on about how a certain artist was the pinnacle of human expression, would you assume all art is a waste of time with no merit, or just that the teacher was a bit of a fool?

Dades

All reasonable points above.

As mentioned philosophy of old was all about new concepts, science and the understanding of the so-far unexplained.

Philosophy today - at least at the level Jimmeny experienced - is never going to stumble upon incredible insights, or shock the scientific world. It is more a rehash of what ancient minds talked about, with regards to the remaining life questions that will probably never be answered.

So yes, it is a "waste of time" if you don't get a kick out of throwing around old ideas, quoting long dead people, and asking questions that will never be answered. But if you do - and each to their own - then no doubt it's a stimulating exercise.

Yes, it may degenerate into a dictionary-fueled quote-slinging match of egos, but no doubt this is no different than many literary or science groups. In fact any club will have it's share of those who are only there to hear themselves talk with authority.

Whatever floats your boat...

Bazz

The question is why you felt the desire to attend that course. Philosophy is something you don’t need a pompous, self-portentous con to lecture you. The very fact they used subliminal gobbledygook to try to convince you that by devoting your time to philosophy you'll be an echelon above people who don't philosophise practically says it all.

solas

which came first, the chicken or the egg?

solo1

There was much talk of how Plato (could be wrong - feel free to correct) thought that philosphising was the best use of your time. It was the highest human endeavour.

Yeah, there's this book called The Republic, where he has a long chat with his friends about the ideal state, how it would be run, how it would be protected, and so on. When you get right down to brass tacks though, surprise surprise, he believes that philosophers would be best suited to running the place. Can you imagine? Nothing would get done. Ever.

Although, in fairness to Plato I reckon that if a taxi-driver wrote a book about how to run the country, he would claim that taxi-drivers were best suited to do so. So maybe it's not fair to criticise the fact that he finds meaning in his own vocation.

Also, I think it's important to note that the only reason philosophy took off in the first place was the prodigious use of slaves to do all the real work, so the older men could go off to the Agora, whine about freedom and have sex with little boys. We don't have slavery now, so all that would be thrown for a loop.

Philosophy is the highest form of human endeavour because it's pure - it's a sublimation of what makes people human instead of, say, a rock, or a caterpillar. We have the ability to think, both directly and obtusely; we can make plans for the future and then question those plans; we can ask if we're asking anything at all; lions don't stop in the middle of hunting a gazelle and wonder if it's something they should be doing.

I have a job that I like doing, but for most of it, I could, given enough time and bananas, train a monkey to take over. I could never train a monkey to question his "monkeyness", or if he thinks it's right that I should withhold a banana simply because he was below his forty-words-a-minute target.

So maybe, from that point of view, it is the highest form of human endeavour - the most exalted thing we can do that makes us human.

Then again maybe not. Those firemen do a good job too.

solo1

Geez. How to kill a thread stone dead. Sorry, guys.

Dades

I'll jump in solo1...

Just because in a sense our ability to philosophise is what places us "above" every other creature, doesn't make it the highest human endeavour IMO.

Maybe it once was, at the dawn of civilisation, but no more. What has philosophy given us in the last 100 years? Speculation and conjecture?

Science, in particular medicine. Now they remain worthy human endeavours.

I'm not saying we shouldn't philosophise, just not be so misguided to say it is our highest endeavor.

WHEELER4

I feel for you Jimmeny. Today's "idea" of philosophy is not the Socratic idea of philosopy. Today, there is no "love of the truth". Truth is a bad word.

Philosophy first and foremost, unlike your group, it is not "something to do for brain fodder". Philosophy is not "skepticism", Philosophy is not "criticism". It is about the Truth. That is its base and core.

Socrates is the founder and beginner of Philosophy as philosophy. He began by using the Principles of definition. These principles are the working parameters of discourse. The next thing is the object of philosophy.

Why do we philosophize? Why did Socrates? because his fellow citizens were committing comunal suicide. He began his inquiry for his beloved city. He loved his fellow man and hated what was going on his city, constant revolution, constant killing, constant upheaval and all the sophists in the city weren't making it any better but creating more headache. There was much confusion.

Why do we philsophize? Why did Socrates? because right philosophy leads to life. Ignorance leads to death. Philosophy is a way to life--The Good life.

Dades

WHEELER,

You sound like one of the characters in Jimmeny's group.

because right philosophy leads to life. Ignorance leads to death. Philosophy is a way to life--The Good life.

What does this mean? Yoda would be proud of that one.

Medical advancement leads to life. Ignorance of the rules of the road leads to death. Philosophy is a stimulating way to spend a few hours.

WHEELER4

You like that one line.

Life is war. The foolish die and the wise live. How does one become wise?

Philosophy.

One of the concommitants of wisdom and philosophy is "commonsense". Most people miss this point. "Common sense" doesn't come from sitting in no classroom; it comes from working in nature, in reality; it comes from the rural, agrarian life. It is a necessary component of any philosophy.

Common sense is necessary in nature. Common sense leads to life. Nature is a quick teacher; she kills anyone without common sense. If common sense leads to life and commonsense is one of the foundational stones of Philosophy proper, then those characteristics pass into Philosophy.

Philosophy is about the knowledge of the Good. The good leads to life, evil leads to death. When we learn the Good, we do the Good because it leads to life.

We eat good food; we don't eat bad food. Our minds are like stomachs. Feed the mind bad philosophy is just like feeding the stomach rotten food. The mind needs good food; i.e. good philosophy.

That is why Philosophy is important. People have all sorts of philosophies. Look at Russia and Nazi Germany, what did their philosophies lead them to? Death and Destruction.

Fysh

WHEELER4 wrote:

You like that one line.
Life is war. The foolish die and the wise live. How does one become wise?
Philosophy.

Pardon me for pointing this out, but, errr, there's a hell of a lot of foolish people out there who haven't died yet and don't look like they're about to. So you'll pardon me for mentally filing your comments in the Nonsense bin.

WHEELER4 wrote:

One of the concommitants of wisdom and philosophy is "commonsense". Most people miss this point. "Common sense" doesn't come from sitting in no classroom; it comes from working in nature, in reality; it comes from the rural, agrarian life. It is a necessary component of any philosophy.

So now to philosophise adequately I have to be a farmer? You wouldn't, by any chance, be a farmer would you? (see comments above regarding taxi drivers who think they'd run the state best if you don't get what mean).

Sorry, but that sounds like more rubbish to me. You can't claim that one particular lifestyle will teach you some sort of universal "common sense" - hell, take a farmer and throw him in the middle of a city and tell him to organise the traffic systems using "common sense" and see how far he gets. The same guy might be fantastic at organising crop rotas on a farm, but that doesn't make his knowledge all-encompassing.

WHEELER4 wrote:

Common sense is necessary in nature. Common sense leads to life. Nature is a quick teacher; she kills anyone without common sense. If common sense leads to life and commonsense is one of the foundational stones of Philosophy proper, then those characteristics pass into Philosophy.

Yay. First it happened in Humanities, now here. Stop ascribing sentience and intent to "Nature" - it's a catch-all term for a series of processes that occur in the biological world, and there is no intent behind the results of those processes. Furthermore, I would absolutely *love* to see how "common sense leads to life" - that's one of the most spectacularly meaningless phrases I have heard in ages, and bear in mind there's been a good few entertaining ones on this board (one of my favourites being the question "what is is?"). If common sense "leads to life", is it involved in conception? Or did you mean "common sense enables the continuation of life". In which case, again, I'm going to have to ask for proof. I've yet to hear any kind of authority on anything claim an increase in certain kinds of deaths due to "lack of common sense".

WHEELER4 wrote:

Philosophy is about the knowledge of the Good. The good leads to life, evil leads to death. When we learn the Good, we do the Good because it leads to life.

We eat good food; we don't eat bad food. Our minds are like stomachs. Feed the mind bad philosophy is just like feeding the stomach rotten food. The mind needs good food; i.e. good philosophy.

What on earth are you wittering on about? How are you deciding what the Good is? And why it "leads to life"? Seriously - this sounds like some sort of cult you're preaching here, and it's absolutely baffling. It's certainly unlike any other endorsement of philosophy I've heard, and I agree with The Atheist - coming out with this sort of high-faluting crap is, if anything, only going to convince the average person that philosophy is the reserve of up-themselves intellectual wannabes.

WHEELER4 wrote:

That is why Philosophy is important. People have all sorts of philosophies. Look at Russia and Nazi Germany, what did their philosophies lead them to? Death and Destruction.

Yes. That's what it was. Their philosophies. It wasn't, in the case of Germany, cynical manipulation of a population that felt hard done by in the Treaty of Versailles. Or in the case of Russia, some headcase taking power and implementing an absolutely bastardised version of the ideals his party originally stood for. Nope. It wasn't the actions of leaders who were unsuited to rule, or a population that didn't do anything to stop the actions of those leaders - It was the philosophy that let them down. :rolleyes:

(What's the name of that rule whereby the first person to invoke the example of the nazis in order to support their argument automatically ends up losing all support? I have the feeling it may come into play shortly...)

Dades

Fysh wrote:

(What's the name of that rule whereby the first person to invoke the example of the nazis in order to support their argument automatically ends up losing all support? I have the feeling it may come into play shortly...)

Except you need to have support before you can lose it.

one of my favourites being the question "what is is?"

Oh man, I wish I was there for that.

solo1

What's the name of that rule whereby the first person to invoke the example of the nazis in order to support their argument automatically ends up losing all support? I have the feeling it may come into play shortly...

Hey! I love using the Nazis to support my arguments! You're telling me there's a word for people like me? What about when the Nazis are a really good example of what I'm talking about, like propoganda, or state corporatism, or institutional racism? Do I still get called the missing word? And what about if I move it around a bit, and use Stalin, or Pol Pot? Do I still get called whatever it is that you can't think of?

My whole career on message boards is in danger here. Someone help me.

bonkey

Godwin's Law

Playboy

Generally, the "point" of philosophy is the achievement of a coherent and experientially adequate
understanding of a broad range of fundamental matters such as knowledge, existence, and value.
The impetus that moved you to ask your question is what moves philosophy. It is the pure desire to
know the truth. This desire competes daily with other desires, but left to itself it would not rest until
satisfied by knowledge of everything about everything. The pure desire to know distinguishes you as
a human questor, which you exemplified by asking your question. Whether there is a "point" to
fulfilling one's nature is a question for another day.
One superficial difference between a simple question that anyone may ask (e.g., "What is
knowledge?," "Is there a God?," or "What ought I do with my life?") and a philosophical question is
endurance: the philosopher pursues simple questions long past the point at which the
non-philosopher loses interest or gives up. But more than intellectual stamina is involved. The
philosopher's interest encompasses every area of experience of which he or she is aware and
demands that provisional answers hang together logically. If they are lacking either in experiential
adequacy or mutual coherence, the philosopher must modify or abandon at least one of them.

Tony Flood

"To think better in order to live better," as the French philosopher Andre Comte-Sponville puts it in his
philosophical dictionary. (That's what I believe the point of philosophy should be, anyway. One can
also use, and many people do use, philosophy as a tool to allow one's vices to flourish more freely
and in subtler forms. But fortunately philosophy is simultaneously a tool to counter such uses of
itself.)

T. P. Uschanov


The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it.
Bertrand Russell

ExOffender

Is there a point in philosophising?
Short answer yes, but with an if, long answer no, but with a but.
Yes, if it leads to an increase in the sum total of happiness on the planet, where 'happiness' relates to anything perceived as 'good'.
No, since 'goodness' is so highly subjective and different from the perspectives of others, and much metaphysical philosophy largely concerns what I consider to be false dichotomies rooted in human inability to perceive objectively (there is no such thing as an objective point of view), all moral philosophy ends ultimately in 'do as I say' or 'do as you please', and existential philosophy... don't get me started. I won't stop. But we essentially need all the help we can get, and thus I regard anything that can't be shown to be actively impeding our progress towards ultimate perfection as at the very worst a potential tool to that end.

BTW, to those who consider medicine and science worthier than philosophy, remember that their separation was comparatively recent, and, IMO, they are heading back together again. Areas like bioethics are becoming increasingly important.
And as a final note: Plato blows.

Dades

ExOffender wrote:

BTW, to those who consider medicine and science worthier than philosophy, remember that their separation was comparatively recent, and, IMO, they are heading back together again. Areas like bioethics are becoming increasingly important.

The separation of Astronomy and Astrology was comparatively recent, but that didn't stop one from remaining a science and the other from being labelled a counterfeit pseudoscience.

I'm not tarring philosophy with the same brush, just pointing out that just because a practice was once held in high regard, it isn't granted special consideration.

Re bioethics; are the questions asked philosophical or merely moral?

Or is addressing a moral dilemma that affects society philosophy...

ExOffender

Re bioethics; are the questions asked philosophical or merely moral?

Not a distinction I make.
And as regards the astronomy/astrology thing, there has always been, and will always be quackery, humbuggery and plain wrong-headedness to deal with. Phrenology was really cooking for a while. The aether looks set to make a comeback (or so I read somewhere, no link, sorry), and how about our good friend homeopathy? I'm not defending astrology, but I think your point is somewhat limited.

Playboy

Most of end game science is philosophy ... it has to end up there at some stage as science is linear. Go back far enough and we cant explain ... go foward far enough and we cant explain ... philosophy is still a big part of science.

Playboy

The Atheist wrote:

The separation of Astronomy and Astrology was comparatively recent, but that didn't stop one from remaining a science and the other from being labelled a counterfeit pseudoscience.

I'm not tarring philosophy with the same brush, just pointing out that just because a practice was once held in high regard, it isn't granted special consideration.

Re bioethics; are the questions asked philosophical or merely moral?

Or is addressing a moral dilemma that affects society philosophy...

The questions asked in bioethics are ethical questions :rolleyes:

Dades

Playboy wrote:

Most of end game science is philosophy ... it has to end up there at some stage as science is linear. Go back far enough and we cant explain ... go foward far enough and we cant explain ... philosophy is still a big part of science.

I can't agree with what you suggest here.

For me, philosophy begins, where science ends. And where science ends - we have only pure speculation. Sure, science involves a lot of speculation, but not without some form of evidence - be it physical or circumstantial.

Playboy

The Atheist wrote:

I can't agree with what you suggest here.

For me, philosophy begins, where science ends. And where science ends - we have only pure speculation. Sure, science involves a lot of speculation, but not without some form of evidence - be it physical or circumstantial.

Do you think that philosophy has no evidence for its assumptions or ideas? If you do you are badly mistaken m8. Philosophy in most cases is an extremely rigorous discipline, which searches for evidence and facts to substantiate its claims. Philosophy is a search for truth .. and you cannot have truth without evidence of it. Have a look at the work of philosphers from Descartes onwards and you will be amazed at the complexity of the arguements. Remember these are some of the most intelligent and profound thinkers that have ever existed .. they are the reason we think about the world in the way we do .. everything from the scientific method of inquiry to the way we think about our body and about god. Its where our morality, our laws and our reasoning are derived from, without philosophy it would not be possible to live in society like we do today.

Dades

When people talk about what philosophy has done for us, we are always reminded of the great minds that lived hundreds or thousands or years ago. I don't deny the effects these thinkers have had on our world and our society - they have been truly influential. But doesn't philosophy live in the past?

Has it not shot it's bolt?

I'm simply putting forward the notion that philosophy is not the powerful influence it once was. How many philosophers in the last 100 years have made a dramatic contribution to our way of life? The past century has seen our world change in unbelieveable ways, due to invention, technology and science. IMO the new "philosophers" are scientific thinkers like Carl Sagan (RIP) or Richard Dawkins.

Playboy

Contemporary Continental Philosophical Movements
Deconstruction -- Postmodernism -- Structuralism -- Post-structuralism -- Post-colonialism -- Infinitism -- Hermeneutics -- Phenomenology -- Existentialism

Contemporary Continental Philosophers
Louis Althusser | Giorgio Agamben | Roland Barthes | Jean Baudrillard | Isaiah Berlin | Maurice Blanchot | Pierre Bourdieu | Hélène Cixous | Guy Debord | Gilles Deleuze | Jacques Derrida | Michel Foucault | Hans-Georg Gadamer | Rene Girard | Jürgen Habermas | Werner Hamacher | Julia Kristeva | Henri Lefebvre | Claude Lévi-Strauss | Emmanuel Levinas | Jean-François Lyotard | Paul de Man | Jean-Luc Nancy | Antonio Negri | Paul Ricoeur | Michel Serres | Paul Virilio | Slavoj Žižek

Contemporary Anglo-American Philosophical Movements
Cognitivism -- Reductionism -- Materialism -- Virtue Ethics -- Objectivism -- Pragmatism

Contemporary Anglo-American Philosophers
Isaiah Berlin | Paul Churchland | Daniel Dennett | Ernest Gellner | John Gray | Susan Haack | Saul Kripke | Thomas Samuel Kuhn | Ruth Barcan Marcus | Colin McGinn | Thomas Nagel | Robert Nozick | Alvin Plantinga | Hilary Putnam | W. V. Quine | John Rawls | John Searle | Bernard Williams | Nicholas Wolterstorff | Jean-Pierre Ady Fenyo

This is a list which I found which I hope will be of some interest to you

Dades

Elsie Andrade
Roger Case
Scott Chadd
Dale Cochoy
Ann Erb
Reiner Goebel
Doug Hawley
George Heffelfinger
Dennis Howke
Larry Jackel
Harold Johnson
Bob Laws
Tom McCormick
Dick Miller
Pauline Muth
John Thompson

Above is the board of directors of the American Bonsai Society.

What they have in common with the individuals you list is a shared passion, knowledge of their field, and absolutely no impact on my life whatsoever.

What any of the people on either of our lists do with their time is not going to affect me. I'm don't put much stock in philosophy, and I've killed too many bonsai over the years to know that it isn't my calling.

Playboy

Why dont you think any of those people have an impact on your life? Do you think that you have to be familiar with each and everyone one of their works inorder for them to have an impact on your life? If they have an impact on art, on literature, on religion, on politics, on bioethics, on sociology, on spituality etc etc. then they are going to have an indirect impact on your life. Philosophy doesnt change things in a day, it seeps in society slowly and changes the way people of that society see the world. Take for example Plato and Aristotle .. Plato practically invented the concept of a soul, he also invented the idea that you could intellectually grasp something. Aristotle wrote books on the arts and on logic. They did not have and impact immediately, they slowly became part of the way we see the world. A more modern example would be phenomenology ... it completly changed the way that art was interpreted. Phenomonlogists like Merleau-Ponty have examined the whole idea of perception and the relationship we have with our body. He puts foward a much more integrated philosphy of the body .. a philosopophy that tells us not to distinguish between the body and the mind but to view ourselves as an integrated being with our bodies been just as much a part of who we are as our mind is. His work has been taken and applied to technology ... check out here

Philosophy is applied across all areas of our lives all the time .. just because you dont notice it doesnt mean it doest happen.

Dades

Playboy wrote:

Philosophy is applied across all areas of our lives all the time .. just because you dont notice it doesnt mean it doest happen.

Of course it happens. People do it all the time.

But I don't believe society would break down if all of todays modern philosophers were shipped off to the moon. People will still make their own minds up. Crucial decisions will still be made. We don't need philosophers to be moral.

Playboy

Go your nearest library and pick up a book up on bioethics or ethics in general. When medicine or government are involved in making a crucial decision about an ethical issue who do you think they turn to? Take for instance gene-therapy and certain countries conservative stance on it, where do you think that type of moral guidance comes from?

Dades

Playboy wrote:

where do you think that type of moral guidance comes from?

So philosophers are now moving in on the role traditionally occupied by the religious hierarchy? I have nothing against people who enjoy philosophy, but the idea that they should be entrusted as our moral guardians grates with me.

Just as with religious organisations, I object to the idea that because someone has struggled through a library of ancient tomes that they are better qualified to make a moral decision in modern society.

A goverments may consult with a "philosopher", but you can be sure they will turn to se what the people [read: voters] want.

Society can speak for itself, be it through the media, interest groups, the Internet, or any number of means available today.

Playboy

w8 a sec here ... philosophers who examine ethical issues such as gene therapy, euthanasia and abortion cannot be compared to religion. I dont mean to be condescending here m8 but try picking up and reading some contemporary philosphy b4 you knock it.

The voters are not the best people to make decisions about highly complex medical and ethical issues. People who are experts in that specific area and fully understand the implications and ramifications of said issues are the best people to advise elected representatives on that issue.

This idea you have of philosophers as people who sit in a dark and dusty room going over ancient tomes is ridiculous. Have a look at some of the videos on this website and it might give you an idea of what contemporary ethics is about.

Dades

Playboy wrote:

I dont mean to be condescending here m8 but try picking up and reading some contemporary philosphy b4 you knock it.

I keep making the point that I'm not knocking it. I was trying to voice my opinion that the art philosophy is of less importance than it once was. So is basket-weaving - and I don't have a problem with that either.

This idea you have of philosophers as people who sit in a dark and dusty room going over ancient tomes is ridiculous.

You know what - you're right. There is probably more to the definition of philosophy than I am familiar with.

In my defence people DO constantly refer to long dead philosophers, and it is probably this fact that had muddied my mental waters. I'll have a listen to a few discussions tomorrow.

The voters are not the best people to make decisions about highly complex medical and ethical issues. People who are experts in that specific area and fully understand the implications and ramifications of said issues are the best people to advise elected representatives on that issue.

When in comes to ethical issues are "philosophers" the only objective minds who warrent an opinion? Not to say that they can't be used in an advisory capacity, but shouldn't the thoughts of cross-section of community also be taken into account?

nesf

Hmm, personally (and this is only my opinion here rather than a reasoned argument), I've never been able to draw a straight line dividing philosophy and scientific/medical ethics. I think there is a huge overlap in thinking between the two and I know that medical and scientific ethics grew from philosophy in one sense. And anyone dismissing medical or scientific ethics as not worthwhile is just confirming the fact that they are fools and know little of what they speak. So could I propose that at least some philosophy is inherently worthwhile due to the questions it is asking being of crucial importance with regard to other fields of human endeavour?


It's like the argument that writing fiction has no worthwhile purpose. Philosophy troubles itself with some of the most important ethical and moral questions. Surely that in itself is a worthwhile endeavour?

Yes philosophy is elitist and uses complicated "jargon" to make it less accessable to members of the general public. But this is also the case for nearly every science and liberal art.

In fact now that I think about it, I don't think I've ever seen a good case put forward for why philosophy is not worthwhile.

Dades

nesf wrote:

It's like the argument that writing fiction has no worthwhile purpose. Philosophy troubles itself with some of the most important ethical and moral questions. Surely that in itself is a worthwhile endeavour?

I don't think anyone since the OP has suggested it wasn't worthwhile. What I know to have been challenged is the notion that "philosophy is the highest human endeavour".

nesf

The Atheist wrote:

I don't think anyone since the OP has suggested it wasn't worthwhile. What I know to have been challenged is the notion that "philosophy is the highest human endeavour".

The "highest human endeavour" is such a subjective thing that I don't think it's worth arguing about tbh.

DadaKopf

This, from Paul Ricoeur's obituary in today's Guardian:

"The symbol sets us thinking," in Ricoeur's famous phrase: we were not so much the creators of our symbols as their creatures, and philosophy was our ever-incomplete attempt to discern their multiple meanings. The purpose of thinking was not to gain knowledge, but to learn to consider the world in the light of our irremediable ignorance.

simu

DadaKopf wrote:

(Guardian quote)

Best reason so far, imo.