The Value of Philosophy

Bravo, Wanderer! Welcome to our board. That was a lovely post, well written and presented a number of interesting ideas. Haha, from now on I will think of philosophy as the bastard child of science and art and smile ( I know you didn't say that, but I inferred, and it pleases me) .


Some of the terms are ill-defined, though, and difficult to deal with as a consequence. The aims of academic philosophy have changed over time and no longer represent

Ethics (both the kind studied at university and the kind embraced by people to live their lives) follows after science and society, not the society of intellectuals and their brand of philosophy, but rather society at a grass roots level. When science does follow after philosophy, it is not usually after the type of philosophy, but rather the types of "philosophy" that "common" folk embrace (which often tends towards religion and the classical conditioning, genetic encoding or whatever it is which we develop our sense of morality from ). Ethics is used to justify the "progresses" of society and science, not hte other way around.


The purpose and nature of art changes as a result of science, grass roots "philosophy" and the march of time ( which requires that art changes in order to prevent stagnation and also (more cynically, perhaps) loss of sales , but very rarely contributes to them. YOur definition of art is beautiful and partially correct. Such a lofty goal (as that you attribute to art) , however, is only a small part of art and artists . Some artists have that aim, but many, many don't, and even amongst those who do , they are striving to explore and express their own personal truths , which can be derived from many things, including religion, science, personal experience grass roots philosophy or even , among the more intellectual kind of artist, academic philosophy.

That's just my opinion, don't treat me too tired. As I will continue to say ( regardless of what certain individuals who have recently changed from wearing a turtle on their head to wearing some small rat-like creature say), go easy on me, I'm tired.

There's also a discussion in the arts section at the moment whcih is related to this ("What is the purpose of art" ) which you might be interested in if you haven't been there yet).

Philosophy , like religion, helps give meaning and consolation to the largely meaningless and upsetting experience that is life.

The purpose of philosophising , in my opinion, is that it's an enjoyable distraction from writting assignments and studying. :wink: .

Bravo, Wanderer! Welcome to our board. That was a lovely post, well written and presented a number of interesting ideas. Haha, from now on I will think of philosophy as the bastard child of science and art and smile ( I know you didn't say that, but I inferred, and it pleases me) .


Some of the terms are ill-defined, though, and difficult to deal with as a consequence. The aims of academic philosophy have changed over time and no longer represent

Ethics (both the kind studied at university and the kind embraced by people to live their lives) follows after science and society, not the society of intellectuals and their brand of philosophy, but rather society at a grass roots level. When science does follow after philosophy, it is not usually after the type of philosophy, but rather the types of "philosophy" that "common" folk embrace (which often tends towards religion and the classical conditioning, genetic encoding or whatever it is which we develop our sense of morality from ). Ethics is used to justify the "progresses" of society and science, not hte other way around.


The purpose and nature of art changes as a result of science, grass roots "philosophy" and the march of time ( which requires that art changes in order to prevent stagnation and also (more cynically, perhaps) loss of sales , but very rarely contributes to them. YOur definition of art is beautiful and partially correct. Such a lofty goal (as that you attribute to art) , however, is only a small part of art and artists . Some artists have that aim, but many, many don't, and even amongst those who do , they are striving to explore and express their own personal truths , which can be derived from many things, including religion, science, personal experience grass roots philosophy or even , among the more intellectual kind of artist, academic philosophy.

That's just my opinion, don't treat me too tired. As I will continue to say ( regardless of what certain individuals who have recently changed from wearing a turtle on their head to wearing some small rat-like creature say), go easy on me, I'm tired.

There's also a discussion in the arts section at the moment whcih is related to this ("What is the purpose of art" ) which you might be interested in if you haven't been there yet).

Philosophy , like religion, helps give meaning and consolation to the largely meaningless and upsetting experience that is life.

The purpose of philosophising , in my opinion, is that it's an enjoyable distraction from writting assignments and studying. :wink: .

Re: The Value of Philosophy


I second the motion made by Eccles, welcome aboard. Your ability to present ideas is both artistically scientific and scientifically artistic. I also see philosophy as a bridge and I see science being limited by the precision of our instruments.

As far as who wins the fight I suppose that depends on what is at stake. The fighter going at it full force for personal satisfaction, the fighter taking a dive for money, the fighter trying to win because the pay is better if he wins, the bookie who has favored odds, or the spectator who put up the down payment for his house on a hunch? I think that many philosophers spout their ideas partially because they like their interpretation of a concept and want to share it with others, and others may do it for personal gain, but I think that a few of us look to provide the spectator with that which they can not get elsewhere.

That being an alternative way to look at a problem that science, art, or religion has tried to interpret but left enough unanswered questions to ponder to cause the philosopher to ponder in the first place. Philosophers do not ponder if the Sun is hot or Pluto is cold, there is little to ponder there. It is where there are holes or gaps that need to be filled that we rise to the occasion. Do we do it for ourselves? I am sure many do, but not all of us.

I suppose that although I hate to make the analogy, many of us are more Jehovah's witnesses than anything else. We seek to convert the scientist, the religious zealot, and the artist maybe not so much to believe what we believe but more so to ponder what they believe. I preach (if you could call it that) not to tell people my ideas are right but more so to get people to open their minds to think for themselves. In turn maybe some religious zealots and some hard core scientists can both appreciate that there exists some things that we may never know but that does not mean one should not philosophize about the possibilities. For only in examining the possibilities can we ever expect to try to ever understand all that which both science and religion has already set up a road block for.

Drawing the 'essence' from life, current, past, and future, is a matter of distilling a 'brew' of all the ingredients that affect the flavour of humanity.
If the name for this process is 'philosophy', so be it; but, it includes art, and science, within its very structure, or it is meaningless.

Agreeing with the majority of the ballance of your thesis, i must insist that the seeking out of 'value' and 'direction' from the chaos of influences forging the 'direction' of society, is not a competition, to be won or lost; but a shoulder to shoulder struggle for intellectual, and ethical survival. Only through co-operation, will those willing to wade into the maelstrom of traditional belief, instinct, fashion, style, custom, and practise - the inertia of popular culture, shovelling mindlessly like a driverless bulldozer toward the 'megadump' of civilization - working together, pooling their resources be able to lead the 'way' into a more logical, just, and egalitarian society.

[philosophy is the synergetic application of intellectual, physical, and emotional wisdom to the design of civilization]

Re: The Value of Philosophy

Most arguments that are framed in this manner -- "X has always been thought of as Y" -- end up constructing a strawman version of X. And this case is no different. You not only create a strawman version of science, Wanderer, but you also do the same for art, and even for philosophy. Your impressionistic musings on these subjects thus can claim no more validity than your own bare assertions. To be sure, there are some interesting musings here, but you should be aware that they are only that.


I've read a great deal of Schopenhauer, and I cannot recall a single instance where he talks about the inter-relation of object and subject. To what are you referring?


Karl Marx said pretty much the same thing over 150 years ago in his "Theses on Feuerbach:" "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it."