Philosophy

[Syk3]

I'm not really sure where you're going with the "2+2=4", but I know that mathematical theorists get into some deep territory when they can't assume a statement like this to be true. We went over it a little in a class I had last semester, but I can't really remember it all too well - it was mainly a quick discussion that one of the students shared with the teacher.

We did use this as a more direct example in my moral theory class however, wherein it was used in contrast to moral truths. While how one knows that a given action is right or wrong is a question for moral theorists, how one comes to believe in the morality of the action is a question for psychologists. As such, how one knows that 2+2=4 is a question for mathematicians, and how one comes to believe this to be true is a question for psychologists. So as a purely philosophical question, there may be little we really have room to say.

We could also take the route of asking why we perceive that 2 and 2 equals 4. That, I think, is due to the limitation of the fact that our bodies percieve space and time; that 4 preceeds 2 after adding 2 to it is something that we are able to logically conceptualize given the causal sequence of time, and the differentiation of objects through space. If our apparatus perceived neither time nor space, there could only be oneness, as Phaedrus has been speaking. One thing; not to be confused as something that comes before something else, but a simplicity that cannot be broken down.

EDIT: In conclusion, I believe that Phaedrus is going to say something about how it may appear to equal 4 as we perceive it, but in fact it will always truly equal 1 in an unperceived reality. :p

[Papa Smurf]

[quote name='Phaedrus']Both views of reality--"big picture" and "small picture" are equally useful, correct? None is greater than the other?[/quote]
I'll let you in on a little secret. The "big picture" and "small picture" are the same thing in this discussion, because there is no cosmic significance here. If you need a difference between the BP and SP, then the BP deals with society on the larger scale, whereas SP focuses on small groups. Regardless, both of them focus on society.

So instead of searching for some greater meaning (i.e., the big picture that doesn't really exist anyway), focus your efforts on the here and the now, where there's no confusion at all and no favoritism regarding BP and SP.

[quote]By following its ghost.[/quote]
Then don't look toward Plato; call up Peter Venkman, Ray Stantz, and Egon Spengler. If you're following ghosts, you need Ghostbusters, not long-dead philosophers, man.

[quote]That's what I've been doing all along, actually. It is liberating. I'm just getting out the kinks and letting go more and more.[/quote]
From what I can see here, you aren't shaping anything. You aren't taking an active role. In fact, it's the complete opposite: you're drifting farther and farther from reality. That's shape[i]less[/i].

[quote]Hm. . .so if there isn't meaning, then why create meaning? Why the need to make something arbitrary? Why not just be lithe and free in the lack of meaning? Further, why exist at all? As a human, we have form, an expression of meaning upon the lack of meaning all around us. . .so why exist?

Musn't we exist for a purpose in this case? Otherwise, why would we exist in the first place?[/quote]
It's all about being a leader versus being a p-ssy.

[quote name='Greggy']In conclusion, I believe that Phaedrus is going to say something about how it may appear to equal 4 as we perceive it, but in fact it will always truly equal 1 in an unperceived reality. :p[/quote]
Even though there is nothing in your Edit that I haven't seen before in my philosophy courseloads at Rutgers, I rest my case regarding the nonsensical ravings of pretend philosophers and misguided jesters, Greggy. Thank you.

[Guest Phaedrus]

Syk knows exactly where I'm taking this. . .

2 + 2 = 4 may be true in a pragmatic sense, but it isn't necessarily true.

Rather, the equation could be rewritten as 2a + 2a = xb, where a is any object, b is any object, and x is any number.

We only see reality on a certain level. On this level, everything's relative to us. However, science has proved that any one object is composed of smaller objects that we can't see unless we bend our senses--cells, atoms, quarks (and it likely goes smaller and smaller, perhaps infinitely--much like a fraction, you can keep cutting and cutting and fractioning and fractioning forever).

Every object is fundamentally made up of the same "stuff," as science has proved. We just can't see all of it, and thus it's impossible for us to understand that everything [i]is[/i] whether we perceive it or not. Everything in reality [i]is[/i] all at once, and thus there is no number; it all functions as a whole, even if it's made of parts.

Of course, in a pragmatic sense, in this society, it's necessary to look at two men and say "those are two men, not a collection of cells and atoms and other things," and then to say there's two other men beside them and to say there's four.

Or it could also be written as x + y + b + z , if you'd like to highlight the differences . Since the Western view likes to differentiate and abstract, isolate and focus, we could say no one person is exactly the same. Not genetically (twins perhaps being an exception--but at the same time, they may differ ever-so-slightly genetically), not spatially, not cellurarly. Not in any way whatsoever.

Some philosophers have claimed that 2 + 2 = 4 is something that's [i]a priori[/i], meaning it is something that can be inferred almost, that it's independent of experience. That you don't have to experience--to see 2 + 2 = 4 and be taught it--to know it's true.

However, there's some leeway given by some philosophers, who state that you can have a vague experience of something that's [i]a priori[/i] in order to know it.

Is 2 + 2 = 4 [i]a priori[/i]?

[Retribution]

[QUOTE=Phaedrus]If philosophy is ultimately useless, then what is wholly useful?

It's true that the only job as a philosophy major is likely a teacher/ professor.[/QUOTE]
[size=1]What is wholly useful? Nothing is 100% and completely useful, but there are things that are far more essential to the progression of the human race. Electronic engineering or law is far more useful than philosophy.

Ask yourself [i]why[/i] the only job as a philosophy major is likely a teacher of youth. Once you ask yourself this, you will understand what I mean. The study of philosophy exists to retain past knowledge, which is a noble goal, but it's certainly not as useful as an engineer or a businessman.

[QUOTE]Honestly, if I didn't have philosophy, I wouldn't be talking to you right now. Philosophy is all I am. . .so if it's ultimately useless, then I guess I may as well be dead now. But I'm not dead, because I know it is useful.[/QUOTE]
It can be useful to you, but if you exist solely to pass on the knowledge to future generations and nothing more, just know your use is very limited.

[QUOTE]Philosophy is more than personal beliefs. You're defining philosophy in a very casual sense. While it contains many personal beliefs, none of these personal beliefs are strictly held onto. The philosophic mind is willing to accept any "personal belief" and question and question it till truth comes forth. While I may have my ideas and assumptions of reality, that doesn't mean I'm not willing to let them go and seek to understand someone else's. . .[/QUOTE]
Never did I say that philosophy is only personal beliefs.

[QUOTE]Philosophy is more than just something passed on. And tell me, what isn't passed on? As men we pass onto our children what we're going to lose, since we're doomed to die, since we're mortal. Genes are passed on, and ideas are too, and so is everything. We nurse this world and hand it off to the next generation, like the handing off of a torch.[/QUOTE]
The difference between passing on philosophy and passing on nanotechnology is that [i]one[/i] has a practical real-world [utilitarian] application while the other does not.

[QUOTE]Philosophy is useful. . .if people were more equipped with a philosophic mind, it could improve the human condition.[/QUOTE]
Of course the improvement of the human condition is a completely subjective measure and opinion-based statement. What is the human condition? How can that be "improved"? The answers to these questions vary from person to person, so your claim falls flat.

[QUOTE]Plato presented the idea of a philosopher-king, and this philosopher-king had to go through rigorous years and years of learning and training before they were made philosopher-king. Not just studying philosophy or thinking or "forming personal beliefs," but also pursuing sports and games, and so many other things too[/QUOTE]
And we see how well humans can produce philosopher kings too. It's this sort of claim that also backs the idea that Communism can actually work; it's too idealistic and blind. I guess I'll have to defend this claim soon... meh.

[QUOTE][...] It's a fanciful idea, this philosopher-king idea, akin to a utopia.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]I'm not saying a philosopher should rule the world. I'm merely trying to show you that philosophy is useful, that a philosophic mindset is a very healthy mind that has great magnamity, great kindness, great flexibility.[/QUOTE]
So wait, let me get this straight. You're saying that the "fanciful idea" (or even the mere concept) of a philosopher king is useful and practical and applicable to the real world? A flexible and kind mind is a great thing to have, but you don't need philosophy to cultivate that.

[QUOTE]It's been centuries and centuries, maybe even millenia, and mankind is still at odds over [i]religion[/i]. It's quite funny. Wars are still raging over that thing. . .and it's creating endless difference. Religion is something passed down too, but religion is problematic, since it gives someone an unhealthy mindset. Instead of giving all things a good go, the believer believes their religion to be true above all. . .and is given a certain set of ideas and attitudes. . .and this only creates endless strife.[/QUOTE]
I fail to see how this correlates to the argument at hand. Clarification is welcome.

[QUOTE]Philosophy looks at the big picture, but it doesn't do so through blind speculation or wholly personal belief, like religion does. . .[/QUOTE]
I don't ascribe to the active study of either philosophy or religion, yet I don't go through blind speculation or wholly personal belief. I don't, and no one else needs to, either. The active study of philosophy is not necessary to cultivate a strong mind.

[QUOTE]Anyway, I digress. You should give philosophy a better chance. But it's not my place to force it on you--you'll find it out your own way if you want to try and understand things to a greater degree.[/QUOTE]
I'm always open to reading philosophy, and I find it interesting on occasion (although I prefer psychology). I just don't see it's practical application in day to day life, which is probably why I'm not drawn to it.

Oh well. Thank my western indoctrination to logic and science for shutting down philosophy. :)

And Syk3, other "distinguished" areas of study differ from philosophy in the respect that while both exist to carry on the knowledge of previous generations, philosophy exists [i]only for that purpose[/i], whereas something like biochemistry has a use readily applicable to the real world.[/size]

[Adahn]

[size=2]I really like this thread, but I want more. I love philosophy, it's such a treat. It's like my favorite food that I forgot all about, and every time I find it again, I get to take a bite. So yummy. I'm going to look into myself and see what I can dig out. I've got some thoughts floating around that I want to be more corporeal, so if in their condensation they seem confused, it's because they haven't quite gotten knocked into order yet.[/size]

[size=2]I have no qualms against laying down my transient thoughts, and only after reading responses and re-reading my posts do I have a more fixed perspective. It's grudging to admit, but I probably would like reading the great philosophers, and I would probably benefit from it without losing anything myself. It sounded nice to say they would be stealing opportunities from me, but susceptibility to nice-sounding things is part of why I'm writing here.[/size]

[size=2]Here on good old OB, I tend not to be very persuasive. I like being argumentative and hard-headed. It's a challenge, sometimes, and conflict is enjoyable. It's easy for me to weave words together and pull ideas out of my posterior, so I do it with great pleasure. I do have some good ideas, I think, but I'm such an *** about getting them across that they have little effect on what other people think.[/size]

[size=2]Unless you're trained against it, or forced to recognize it, I can be very persuasive. Persuasion is all about flowery and enticing language. You must make it appear to flow, rather than make your arguments seem etched in a tall, stone obelisk in a scratchy hand. If there is a strong mind behind the words, the persuasion can be dangerous. I do not know if I'm strong enough, or if I have a good enough way with words, but from now on, I will attempt to assume the writing form of a dangerously persuasive man.[/size]

[size=2]Jacqueline and Alex have been together only for a month, but they know in their hearts that they are soulmates. They decide to get engaged, and their friends, Stephanie and Greg take them out to dinner to celebrate. Throughout the night, both Stephanie and Greg notice that there is a very strong connection between Jacky (her nickname) and Alex. Stephanie and Greg appreciate this quality in their friends, and stay together, hoping to one day experience what Jacky and Alex have. Over the period of engagement, they only grow closer, and after their wedding, the four find themselves once again dining out in celebration. Steph and Greg see that the connection between Jacky and Alex is so strong, that the previous apparent oneness is now a complete oneness. They find it difficult to think of one without the other, and thus consider them, in all ways, to be one.[/size]

[size=2]From Steph and Greg's perspective, there are three separate entities at the table. The waitress does not perceive this connection, and she considers them four. One thing is certain, though. Except for the different perspectives, all that make up Jacky, Alex, Greg, and Steph does not change as a result of these perspectives. From one perspective, Jacky and Alex are one, and grouped to be one, and Greg and Steph are separate entities, and as such grouped as two. The other perspective groups them all as four. So, what do we have?[/size]

[size=2]1 + 2 = 4[/size]

[size=2]Is this not an accurate representation of the situation? Both perceptions are correct, in their own way, but it shows Mathematics for what it is. Mathematics is an imperfect model for balance. It fails when we make combinations that don't conform to its rules, and make comparisons from different perspectives.[/size]

[size=2]The beauty of balance is that it is an absolute that encompasses all relativism. The relative perceptions that create 1 + 2 on one side, and 4 on another side make perfect sense when the balance between them is understood.[/size]

[size=2]Now, though I have tried to assume a more persuasive nature, my desire for conflict aches to be fulfilled. You may challenge my child, my beautiful balance, and I will defend her with all the ability I possess. We will make you see her as I do. It is best, though, if you accept her. Know her, love her, cherish her, and live by her. Unlike most other things, she is absolute, and she will never, ever, fail you.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]EDIT: Retribution, excuse me if I am wrong, but you seem to be interested in the same topic of study as I. My major is Cell and Molecular Biology (Biotechnology), and nanotechnology is a related field. I don't know how you feel about DNA, but what do you think of using our own genetic 'machinery' to custom design proteins to serve as biological machines? Do you prefer nanotechnology as it doesn't (yet) require us to utilize and change the biological, or is it just that you find it interesting? Would you also find custom genetic coding interesting, or off-limits? If I miss the true reason, I apologize, and mean nothing by it. It's just so strange to find someone with the same (possible) interests as I.[/size]

[Syk3]

I honestly cannot think of anything that is [i]more[/i] practical than philosophy, and if you can dismiss the whole thing as useless I'm not really sure how to respond. The thing about philosophy that I love is that it puts everyone in the same boat no matter what background or knowledge you have or time period you're in, in order to understand the world in which we find ou[size=2]rselves and how to cope with it. It's about dealing with what we've got, but if one doesn't attempt to understand philosophy of course it won't be of any use.

You seem to be denying the possibility that developed conceptions and points of view affect us in a major way, either individually or collectively. By your logic, I should be able to knock off the studies of history, art, creative writing.. basically any of the humanities, simply because they don't tell us anything about how circuits go together to create computers which support our materialistic society. These subjects provide not only the motivation, but the accepted knowledge as well to enable us as human beings to put our best work into practice. Perhaps you're also unaware that philosophy often distinguishes within itself knowledge that is useful theoretically or practically. It's important not to get caught up in particular time periods, such as this one, because you come to find through studying history that civilizations rise and decline very similarly to each other; maybe this timelessness of study you're reacting harshly to isn't as bad as you may think. It's true that philosophy does not have a clear advancement (more along the lines of two steps forward, one step back), and therefore it's important to study the range of philosophy and philosophers to understand their important insights along the way.

[quote name='Retribution][/size] [size=2']What is wholly useful? Nothing is 100% and completely useful, but there are things that are far more essential to the progression of the human race. Electronic engineering or law is far more useful than philosophy.[/quote]I mean no offense, but your statement about nothing being 100% seems more lip service to accepted corrections than supporting your argument. But sure, because of the functions of things, they are intended to do only particular things with other possible uses as a second-thought. Philosophy may not be much help within an irrational realm, because of its deep root in rationality (whether you want to see this or not, Phaedrus :p). What do you consider to be essential for humans, and what is good progression of the human race? Why should humans blindly attempt to progress without considering philosophy?

[quote]Ask yourself [i]why[/i] the only job as a philosophy major is likely a teacher of youth. Once you ask yourself this, you will understand what I mean. The study of philosophy exists to retain past knowledge, which is a noble goal, but it's certainly not as useful as an engineer or a businessman.[/quote]Ask yourself why philosophy majors are among the most proficient when they apply themselves to other areas of study, using an underlying philosophical approach (yes, that's practical application). It's true that it's difficult to see someone getting paid to philosophize, but consider the Sophists of days past (not a great an example, though), or being hired by companies to head an ethical departmant that is often consulted on what should be done. And even if it only was to hold knowledge, the fact that practical application must be done by humans, and humans have perceptions that frame this practice, and these perceptions are affected deeply by philosophy means that it's not useless.

[quote]It can be useful to you, but if you exist solely to pass on the knowledge to future generations and nothing more, just know your use is very limited.[/quote]Do you have any idea what a different world we'd live in if Socrates had not philosophized? Plato? Aristotle? Descarte? Kant? Please, inform me if you honestly don't recognize the crucial foundation that philosophy has provided to change the course of history many times over by someone who wished to question reality.

[quote]Never did I say that philosophy is only personal beliefs.[/quote]Semantics (happy? -_-), you said that's the only use of it. lol "...[/size][size=2]but ultimately useless aside from creating your personal beliefs."
[/size] [size=2]
[quote]The difference between passing on philosophy and passing on nanotechnology is that [i]one[/i] has a practical real-world [utilitarian] application while the other does not.[/quote]Dude, you know utilitarianism is a philosophical concept, right? Developed by Jeremy Bentham, he attempted to influence the field of moral philosophy by developing an ethics of doing where one would try to maximize pleasure and avoid pain. He intended for this philosophical idea to be psychological and practical in nature, and it soon spread to application in other areas.

[quote]Of course the improvement of the human condition is a completely subjective measure and opinion-based statement. What is the human condition? How can that be "improved"? The answers to these questions vary from person to person, so your claim falls flat.[/quote]It seems to me that one should not get caught up in working only with how this society operates because then you're accepting the inevitable mistakes made by others, but should compare it to ideals in various ways in order to improve it. Otherwise, thinking like "money is happiness" will arise, though there is no sense of money being fundamental to someone being happy across time periods and geographical location.

[quote]So wait, let me get this straight. You're saying that the "fanciful idea" (or even the mere concept) of a philosopher king is useful and practical and applicable to the real world? A flexible and kind mind is a great thing to have, but you don't need philosophy to cultivate that.[/quote]You know, I've been considering your use of the word concept, and I'm not sure if you accurately apply the same terminology to scientific theories. Sure, they seem to work for us now, but we're the ones who put them in place, not nature. As is often true, contradictions will be found and new scientific conceptions will be put in their place. Science is constantly being torn down and replaced with new things that may be tried for a while before being thrown away. What I'm saying is.. if you say you can't depend on concepts to be accurate then you can't depend on science either. Might as well accept that it's only telling us psychological attributes of the human mind and be on your way.

[quote]I don't ascribe to the active study of either philosophy or religion, yet I don't go through blind speculation or wholly personal belief. I don't, and no one else needs to, either. The active study of philosophy is not necessary to cultivate a strong mind.[/quote]Strong psychological states of mind come about from being able to accurately react within this world, something that can be discussed and grown by way of philosophy. You don't have to consciously study philosophy to have a strong mind, but that's not to say that studying philosophy won't produce this same effect.

[quote]And Syk3, other "distinguished" areas of study differ from philosophy in the respect that while both exist to carry on the knowledge of previous generations, philosophy exists [i]only for that purpose[/i], whereas something like biochemistry has a use readily applicable to the real world.[/QUOTE]Haha, well if you say so, but see above.

EDIT: So let's recap real quick. Your argument is something like:[/size]


[list]
[*]Philosophy is ultimately useless because it has no real-world practical value, remaining as knowledge passed down through the ages though it's just kind of sitting there.
[/list]And my premises can be summed up as:
[list=1]
[*]What is considered practical and worthwhile is itself a philosophical question.
[*]Philosophy already divides itself as theoretical and practical, the practical side being things like happiness, morality, and politics.
[*]Science was not distinguished from philosophy up until the 18th century.
[*]Philosophy is the foundation of Western societies, which eventually split into other subjects, and has changed the course of history many times by a few individuals questioning reality.
[*]Beliefs of philosophical concepts influence perception (such as Copernicus and his heliocentric solar system), and perception is used when performing practical actions.
[*]This message board utilizes philosophy by holding a place for logical argument.
[*]Most people have philosophical problems, in dealing with death, the existence of God, wondering why we're here, etc.
[*]Philosophy being timeless doesn't lower its value, it increases its importance in applying to everyone.
[*]The study of philosophy and other humanities give us the knowledge and motivation to put our best work into practice.
[*]An underlying philosophy for any subject is crucial to proficiency in it.
[*]There are jobs other than just professor that relate to philosophy, such as departments of ethics, though why you should study something just to make money is beyond me.
[*]You provide an example of a practical value which has roots in philosophical concept and study.
[*]When not comparing current states of affair to ideals in order to provide improvement, you accept the inevitable mistakes of others.
[*]Science, a typical contrast to philosophy, also deals with concepts that are waiting to be torn down and replaced with something better.
[*]Strong psychological states of mind can come about from philosophical study.
[/list]Ahh argumentation, how much we owe thee to philosophy.

[Adahn]

[size=2]Philosophy definitely plays a part in many useful things, but how useful is it in itself?[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]First, you need a great mind. Your average Joe will not be a great philosopher. A great mind, though, can be many things. One could have a great mind for the practical, the spiritual, or the physical, and be a great philosopher.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]Next, this great mind must decide to devote itself to philosophy. The person may have excelled in many fields, but this great mind must choose philosophy.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]Now, we have a great mind focused on philosophy, and I'm going to make an assumption. Someone with a great mind dedicated to philosophy must live a particularly comfortable life. You cannot have time to devote to philosophy if you work 40 hours a week. It's exhausting, and progress will come slowly. Therefore, you must be a priveleged member of society to be able to pursue this successfully.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]Now, the person devotes an amount of time to philosophy, and writes a whole bunch of stuff down. This stuff then has to be read and accepted for mass production. If this happens, then we have philosophy books written by our priveleged, great minded person.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]It takes time for people to read books, and even longer for them to impact the world. How many years will they sit on the shelf before they are used as guidelines for some 'real' thing? The philosopher has been published, so he has money now, and he/she can write to his/her heart's content, until the day he/she dies.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]There is no guarantee that your work will EVER impact ANYONE in ANY real way. They may enjoy your work, but it will probably never be any more than something enjoyable to read.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]Philosophy is important, because some works do have an effect on society, but I think Retribution wants to have a real effect on it. He wants to do work that he know will change things. He wants his impact on the world to be real, even if it's only a thumbprint in the dirt.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]Philosophy gives you no such guarantee. Your work may be completely useless, or it could change the world. Your impact could have the force of a meteor strike, or it could miss completely. Using a physical metaphor, philosophy is full of potential energy, which may or may not be transformed into kinetic energy. Retribution's ideas may have less potential, but there is some kinetic energy there, always.[/size]

[Syk3]

I don't see how your points pose more of a problem for philosophy than for any other field of study. If you're expecting to impact the world with your writing or research, you're going to need a lot of luck in addition to years of experience. lol I'm not saying that it's easy to make a splash in philosophy, but in response to Retribution it's possible to apply the knowledge gained by studying it in a practical way (if you so wished to do so), be that by simply living your own life or by trying to improve the lives of others by structuring politics. It appears to me an argument that can be resolved by clarifying for Retribution the true nature of philosophy, against which he seems to have created a personal definition based on face-value. Do you ever have moral problems? Of course you do. Do you ever wonder how to be happy? Of course you do. Philosophy studies these areas and helps immensely.

I understand that you support his possible goals in nanotechnology, but no subject guarantees "[size=2]that your work will EVER impact ANYONE in ANY real way".[/size] Changing the world for all to see is an ambitious dream, and I don't pretend to have a desire to do so. The question is, do you deny that people [i]have[/i] done this with philosophy, and that it's had a considerable effect on others/society/whatever you like? I can do my part to try improving the quality of life for those around me, as I'm working towards becoming a psychotherapist, though I think it's important to take a step back before pushing humanity as a whole forward (which is what I'm taking you to be defining as practical) and see if things like materialistic science and medication everywhere is really the way to go.

EDIT: I've been thinking about this some more, and I'd like to add that it's possible to be practical with something like philosophy without impacting society in a major way. If this is how you define practical, then it almost defeats the purpose of doing anything at all if that which is not practical is useless and that we should avoid useless things. As a psychologist who studies people on an individual level, I admit that I sometimes react harshly to some sociological ideals that negate the possibility that people have reasons for doing what they do. And once we get to that individual level, what becomes practical may be as simple as sustaining a strong degree of mental health, which as I've been saying goes along with philosophy; it's not merely a result of mental health, but improves upon it.

Philosophy is, of course, not limited to the individual level, but it's certainly not devoid of it either, by any means. Whether you can see the practicality or not ultimately doesn't matter. I've found through posting here that it's difficult to relay practicality through concepts that others so despise. I know through my study of moral philosophy that I've obtained motivation and knowledge to become a better person and defend my position of such, which of course influences my decisions between actions. Recently I've also counsoled myself and others around me by developing and sharing my philosophy of death. In terms of supporting practical value and uses of philosophy, it's against what I see to be self-evident to say otherwise.

[Papa Smurf]

I think the biggest problem with this current discussion is that both sides are looking at philosophy and immediately thinking "intellectual godness".

The pro-philosophy side is touting it as wonderful and promoting unprecedented intellectual growth (that's the implication I'm seeing, and I doubt I'm mis-reading anything).

The anti-philosophy, or perhaps [i]non[/i]-philosophy side believes most philosophers (even the pretend ones in this thread) to have falsely inflated senses of self-worth, and so any support of philosophy is immediately regarded as silly posturing.

And I don't think anyone can deny that much of what the pro-philosophy side is saying is silly posturing. Topics are being discussed purely for the sake of discussion. People are talking purely for the sake of talking. The 2+2 bit is a perfect example of straight-up nonsensical and pointless talk for the sake of talk. What good, realistically, can come from such a bizarre and nigh-incoherent "A man is not singular because of Pluralism"?

And I think some of what the pro-philosophy side is saying is actually justifying and supporting Retribution's comments, as lame and infantilely phrased as they were. He's saying philosophy is useless in a practical sense, right?

Well, when I see someone try to break down 2+2=4 and attempt to prove there's something more to it, by pointing to two men and then haphazardly incorporating a variation of Pluralism...I think that's pretty strong confirmation that there's some downright useless philosophy in the world.

I think the reason that the philosophers and pretend philosophers don't see that is because they're too caught up in it to step back and seriously, rigorously ask themselves if the topic merits such "analysis."

With regards to ethics, political theory/philosophy, religious philosophy, Ontology, Epistemology, etc, I think people are missing a key point when getting at the practical application of philosophy:

It's not philosophy anymore. It's public discussion.

You can see this happening everywhere, even in something as simple and immediately accessible as the Terri Schiavo thing from a few years ago. There was a huge moral outcry/debate going on. Did you see anyone quoting ancient philosophers? I watched most of the congressional coverage of it and I saw maybe a handful of references. All the rest either was straight-forward essays/speeches or referring to God's will.

Why was that, you think? Do you think 99% of those speeches didn't include older philosophy/philosophers out of contempt or ignorance, or perhaps we've reached a time where everyone talks about morality in a public forum?

I mean, I love philosophy just as much as the next guy--and no offense, but I probably have a much healthier view of it than most people in this thread, no matter which side you're on), but I'm plenty prepared to state that worshipping philosophy is unnecessary because of how our society has progressed today.

Sure, we don't have philosopher-kings (and really, that concept is common sense) and most of our leaders are douchebags, but regardless, ethics in politics is a major discussion topic anywhere you go today, whether you're at a political rally, a presidential debate, an impeachment hearing, on the No-Spin Zone or Hardball, or even at the family dinner table. Religious debates are alive and well.

Does that increase the importance of philosophy, perhaps because that ancient philosophy is the fundamental groundwork for these modern debates?

No. If anything, it's the complete opposite. It's not just a small handful of the "brilliant minds" of a society having these types of socioethical debates; it's regular people. Philosophy is just as important today, if not more important, than it was five hundred years ago...but it's not philosophy today; it's another conversation topic in the public collective.

And people see that when they really look at it, and that's where the "philosophy is ultimately useless" comments truly come from.

But wait, one might argue that the "regular joes" are actually the pretend philosophers because they aren't educated in the history and background of the focus of the discussion.

But to that I wonder...since philosophy strives to be honest and true...which of the following sounds more honest?

1) A regular joe talking about how it's wrong to limit stem cell research because it can help many more people than it'll hurt.

OR

2) Because Plato's Duality of Matter states that the form can never meet the idea, because matter is imperfect, while the idea is always perfect, and as the human form--the body, the matter--is imperfect, it is therefore questionable to pursue avenues of action that attempt to reach higher, to perfection, for that is arrogance of the gravest offense.

Which sounds forced, and which sounds honest? Who sounds like a pretend philosopher, and who sounds like a true philosopher?

Just look at public discourse. The many times when someone stumbles around a(n unintentionally philosophical) discussion isn't because philosophy is better left to people of higher intellect; it's because that person is just a moron.

[Retribution]

[quote name='Syk3']I don't see how your points pose more of a problem for philosophy than for any other field of study. If you're expecting to impact the world with your writing or research, you're going to need a lot of luck in addition to years of experience. lol I'm not saying that it's easy to make a splash in philosophy, but in response to Retribution it's possible to apply the knowledge gained by studying it in a practical way (if you so wished to do so), be that by simply living your own life or by trying to improve the lives of others by structuring politics. It appears to me an argument that can be resolved by clarifying for Retribution the true nature of philosophy, against which he seems to have created a personal definition based on face-value. Do you ever have moral problems? Of course you do. Do you ever wonder how to be happy? Of course you do. Philosophy studies these areas and helps immensely.[/quote]
[size=1]I guess my point was that becoming a "philosopher" or trying to get a job in philosophy has very, very limited use. Certainly, philosophy has use if you apply it in a practical way. And again, I will say that philosophy definitely helps you on a personal level such as if I had a moral problem, or if I wondered how to be happy.

[quote name='Papa Smurf']And I think some of what the pro-philosophy side is saying is actually justifying and supporting Retribution's comments, as lame and infantilely phrased as they were. He's saying philosophy is useless in a practical sense, right?[/quote]
But thanks for remaining more mature than me. I appreciate the civility.[/size]

[Syk3]

[quote name='Retribution][size=1']I guess my point was that becoming a "philosopher" or trying to get a job in philosophy has very, very limited use. Certainly, philosophy has use if you apply it in a practical way. And again, I will say that philosophy definitely helps you on a personal level such as if I had a moral problem, or if I wondered how to be happy.[/quote][size=2] Oh.. yeah. That's true. lol Being a professional philosopher is up there with being a professional artist; in order to even make a living, you must publish fantastic work that survives the horrors of peer review. The job market is limited if you want to make money from being a philosopher, so I wonder if that's actually an underlying message to those studying it: that you're going to have to see it as providing something of deep interest to you if you really want to pursue such a career.

For me with my two majors, I see Philosophy as something that can help me in life and Psychology as something that can help me in a career, though the latter is still something I love to learn about. Even with something typical like being a philosophy professor, it seems like a neat idea but from what I've learned you sort of have to keep up with the times and current affairs in philosophy, which doesn't help if you don't like what's being discussed now. And if you do like what's being discussed now, it could easily switch over to something else; there's not a whole lot of independent research time that people may dream about with that job, and you cannot escape the academic aspect of it (perhaps you may always wonder how it's different "in the real world" lol).[/size]
[/size]

[Horendithas]

[COLOR=DeepSkyBlue]Well in general I don?t find studying philosophy all that interesting. I tend to think of it as it?s described in the dictionary. [I]A system of principles for guidance in practical affairs or a philosophical attitude, as one of composure and calm in the presence of troubles or annoyances.[/I]

I know there is more to it but beyond thinking of it along those lines I don?t have any real interest in it. It may not be accurate but I tend to think of my system of beliefs as being a part of my philosophy towards life, though it?s probably more accurate to refer to that as my ethical system. [/COLOR]

[Fasteriskhead]

[SIZE=1]Sorry to bring back a thread that's been dead for awhile (and probably thankfully so, for some people). But damn it, had I not been gone for two weeks y'all know I wouldn't have missed this thing. Unfortunately I don't have enough time to address all of the really wonderful stuff further up. I'll just quote two sources to try to address the question below, talk a little about them, and leave it at that.

[QUOTE=Phaedrus][SIZE=1]Well, let us start at the beginning.

What is philosophy?[/SIZE][/QUOTE]First quote. In the first book of his [i]Physics[/i] Aristotle writes:

[quote][SIZE=1]When the objects of an inquiry, in any department, have principles, conditions, or elements, it is through acquaintance with these that knowledge, that is to say scientific knowledge [my note: Aristotle does not mean "science" in the modern sense of experimentation; read "scientific knowledge" as "knowledge found by way of first principles"], is attained. For we do not think that we know a thing until we are acquainted with its primary conditions or first principles, and have carried our analysis as far as its simplest elements. Plainly therefore in the science of Essence, as in other branches of study, our first task will be to try to determine what relates to its principles.[/SIZE][/quote]If a definition of philosophy (which is the only thing Aristotle talks about here) better than this paragraph has ever been written, I haven't read it. Philosophy (in the "western" sense at least; in any case, given that the term and the tradition comes from Greece it might be more appropriate to call "eastern philosophy" something else) is a kind of inquiry which always looks first to the [i]principles[/i] upon which everything else stands (and this is something different from what's merely "in common" to everything, which is how Aristotle is usually misunderstood). Philosophy seeks to know about things in terms of their "primary conditions or first principles," and doesn't count itself as really knowing anything at all before it gets to this. And it should be immediately obvious to everyone that these "first principles" are quite different from physical laws in our sense, and that the word "thing" doesn't necessarily refer just to some objectively extant piece of matter. The fact that he first says "object of an inquiry" gives us a clue: [i]included[/i] in the search for first principles is the question of how we're able to inquire about this or that "thing" in the first place.

Second quote. In his [i]Theaetetus[/i] Plato has Socrates describe philosophers' relation to the rest of society. This is a bit long, but it's worth quoting as much as can be tolerated:

[quote][SIZE=1]SOCRATES: ...In the first place, the lords of philosophy have never, from their youth upwards, known their way to the Agora, or the dicastery, or the council, or any other political assembly; they neither see nor hear the laws or decrees, as they are called, of the state written or recited; the eagerness of political societies in the attainment of offices, clubs, and banquets, and revels, and singing-maidens, do not enter even into their dreams. Whether any event has turned out well or ill in the city, what disgrace may have descended to any one from his ancestors, male or female, are matters of which the philosopher no more knows than he can tell, as they say, how many pints are contained in the ocean. Neither is he conscious of his ignorance. For he does not hold aloof in order that he may gain a reputation; but the truth is, that the outer form of him only is in the city: his mind, disdaining the littlenesses and nothingnesses of human things, is ?flying all abroad? as Pindar says, measuring earth and heaven and the things which are under and on the earth and above the heaven, interrogating the whole nature of each and all in their entirety, but not condescending to anything which is within reach.

THEODORUS: What do you mean, Socrates?

SOCRATES: I will illustrate my meaning, Theodorus, by the jest which the clever witty Thracian handmaid is said to have made about Thales, when he fell into a well as he was looking up at the stars. She said, that he was so eager to know what was going on in heaven, that he could not see what was before his feet. This is a jest which is equally applicable to all philosophers. For the philosopher is wholly unacquainted with his next-door neighbour; he is ignorant, not only of what he is doing, but he hardly knows whether he is a man or an animal; he is searching into the essence of man, and busy in enquiring what belongs to such a nature to do or suffer different from any other; I think that you understand me, Theodorus?

THEODORUS: I do, and what you say is true.

SOCRATES: And thus, my friend, on every occasion, private as well as public, as I said at first, when he appears in a law-court, or in any place in which he has to speak of things which are at his feet and before his eyes, he is the jest, not only of Thracian handmaids but of the general herd, tumbling into wells and every sort of disaster through his inexperience. His awkwardness is fearful, and gives the impression of imbecility. When he is reviled, he has nothing personal to say in answer to the civilities of his adversaries, for he knows no scandals of any one, and they do not interest him; and therefore he is laughed at for his sheepishness; and when others are being praised and glorified, in the simplicity of his heart he cannot help going into fits of laughter, so that he seems to be a downright idiot. When he hears a tyrant or king eulogized, he fancies that he is listening to the praises of some keeper of cattle ? a swineherd, or shepherd, or perhaps a cowherd, who is congratulated on the quantity of milk which he squeezes from them; and he remarks that the creature whom they tend, and out of whom they squeeze the wealth, is of a less tractable and more insidious nature. Then, again, he observes that the great man is of necessity as ill-mannered and uneducated as any shepherd ? for he has no leisure, and he is surrounded by a wall, which is his mountain-pen. Hearing of enormous landed proprietors of ten thousand acres and more, our philosopher deems this to be a trifle, because he has been accustomed to think of the whole earth; and when they sing the praises of family, and say that some one is a gentleman because he can show seven generations of wealthy ancestors, he thinks that their sentiments only betray a dull and narrow vision in those who utter them, and who are not educated enough to look at the whole, nor to consider that every man has had thousands and ten thousands of progenitors, and among them have been rich and poor, kings and slaves, Hellenes and barbarians, innumerable. And when people pride themselves on having a pedigree of twenty-five ancestors, which goes back to Heracles, the son of Amphitryon, he cannot understand their poverty of ideas. Why are they unable to calculate that Amphitryon had a twenty-fifth ancestor, who might have been anybody, and was such as fortune made him, and he had a fiftieth, and so on? He amuses himself with the notion that they cannot count, and thinks that a little arithmetic would have got rid of their senseless vanity. Now, in all these cases our philosopher is derided by the vulgar, partly because he is thought to despise them, and also because he is ignorant of what is before him, and always at a loss.[/SIZE][/quote]Again, if something better than this has been written on the topic, I am unaware of it. How do philosophers relate to the rest of the world? They are laughed at, because they are constantly falling into wells. The uniqueness of the philosopher, for Plato, is that they "look at the whole," the "whole nature of each and all in their entirety," and that they do so in a state of being "ignorant of what is before them, and always at a loss." (this kind of looking is also what Aristotle means by "carrying out analysis by way of first principles.")

What does "looking at the whole" mean? For example, today we've got a very complex and well-developed science called "physics" which is able to investigate not only massive gravitational entities that can even suck in light, but also subatomic particles too small to be examined any way other than through probability. Doesn't physics then "look at the whole"? If I were to ask a particularly honest physicist, he would probably say no: the "objects of inquiry" for physics can only be the [i]physical[/i], and physics couldn't proceed at all unless it knew in advance how that was distinct from the nonphysical. But then, isn't that kind of abstract inquiry completely silly? Yes, and it's for precisely that kind of reason that philosophers get laughed at by Thracian handmaids. Handmaids don't really take it upon themselves to ask, for example, what "principles, conditions, or elements" separate the physical from the nonphysical and vice versa, because this doesn't even seem to be a sensible question. Physics as it stands today would never even be [i]possible[/i] had no "downright idiot" first stumbled into a well and searched into physicality's primary conditions, but that doesn't make the question any less silly. Handmaids today might know a lot more about physics, but they still never see a point to "looking up" at the distant and abstract. And rightly so: in not seeing a point to philosophy, they know more about it than they think.

Again, I wish I could go on and speak further about the other posts, but I think this is long enough already. Whoever understands these two quotes has, I think, a fairly good grasp on what philosophy aims for. If given proper consideration, they say far more than I can.[/SIZE]

[Guest Phaedrus]

Thanks for your input in the thread. It was very worthwhile. I can't wait to move away from this college to one with a philosophy program.