Philosophers think they know it all - they are never wrong.

That would mean, of course, that all knowledge is useful knowledge.
What is too easily learned is soon forgotten... It is like the gulf of Mexico...

Jabber on my KennY

I am no Berliner God Forgives

Arbeit macht frei they said... I worked hard, I am a double Dutch trained academic... Still I struggle with my expenses

SQS

I would just think that if someone starts a thread they would be willing to discuss the matter, whatever it was. Instead, this elitist whiner jumps on a pedestal the moment he/she posts, shouting, "I'm too good to actually consider any other perspectives, but I'll leave this post here anyway so that I may attract attention".

This sort of thing is immature and doesn't impress me.

If i derive pleasure or income from learning, teaching, and/or applying useless information/knowledge is it really useless?

Arbeit macht frei they said... I worked hard, I am a double Dutch trained academic... Still I struggle with my expenses

If i derive pleasure or income from learning, teaching, and/or applying useless information/knowledge is it really useless?

If a dog is a mongoose, it it really a dog? Answer, if a dog is a mongoose, then it is not a dog. But if a dog is really a mongoose, then it is not a dog, but a mongoose.

Either knowledge is useless or it is not useless. Make up your mind. If it is useless, then it is really useless. And if it is not useless, then it is not really useless. One thing it cannot be is both useless and not useless. The "reallys" are just confusing.

kennethamy wrote:

Every tool is useless until it is used, but no mechanic worth the name would begin a job with only the tools he has found useful in the past...

Both statements above are false on the face of it. My computer is not useless until it is used. A useless computer would be one that cannot be used because (say) it is broken. No tool is useless just because it is not used as long as it can be used.
Many mechanics (in fact, I would venture to say, all) begin their jobs with the tools they have used in the past. One or two might bring a new tool he has never used before because someone he trusts told him is is useful. But that would be a comparative rarity.

Things are simultaneously useless and usefull all the time. Being designed to have a use does not useful make. Usefulness also requires an agent knowlegeable enough to use something with the will to do so. This is different than being "beneficial to", which in some places may be used somewhat interchangeably. An electrocardioscope is of no use to me although its uses may benifit me, but it is of use to a cardiologist and benefits him at the same time. The EKG's inherent useful design is of no use if no-one uses it. It is in a dormant state of potential use and potential benefit.

see above

glad we got it sorted out

GoshisDead wrote:

glad we got it sorted out

Most people, I think, know that whether what you say is true depends on what it is you say. What you said it that whether something is useful depends on in what way it is useful. That is true, but it is not especially headline news. Nothing to sort out.

kennethamy wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:

glad we got it sorted out

Most people, I think, know that whether what you say is true depends on what it is you say. What you said it that whether something is useful depends on in what way it is useful. That is true, but it is not especially headline news. Nothing to sort out.

Then why did you get your knickers in a twist about it?

GoshisDead wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:

glad we got it sorted out

Most people, I think, know that whether what you say is true depends on what it is you say. What you said it that whether something is useful depends on in what way it is useful. That is true, but it is not especially headline news. Nothing to sort out.

Then why did you get your knickers in a twist about it?

No twisted knickers. Just an attempt to clarify a confused remark.