Is philosophy useless?

@TuringEquivalent,

Philosophy is far from useless, though granted it spends time with alot of useless questions. But that is true of most areas of human inquiry.

While genetic reseach may be a strictly scientific activity, the responsible and safe application of it in daily life is a matter of philosophy.

Philosophy is a tool, and as such it is as useful as a hammer when you have no nails to drive in, or mathematics if you don't have anything to calculate.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Good answer.

Q: Is it proper to let religion guide medical research such as stem cell?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

That doesn't mean, however, that the word "useful" has a different definition in each situation. The definition remains the same even though the circumstances might vary.

So, how is philosophy useful for everyone? Don 't tell me it is "just useful".

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
Why is philosophy useful, or useless. I will argue the latter.
The answer is 'It is useful when it produces a useful outcome'. A generic 'yes' or 'no' answer will always be, as a generalisation, wrong. The answer is specific to the situation.

Fixing on a thesis, because people can come up with arguments.

Can you even give an argument? Since why the **** would you post in a ******* philosophy forum, and not a give some type of argument? Do you need some ******* social connection, or what?

0 Replies

@TuringEquivalent,

Quote:

This is really general. One of the point I made is that most people will not use their philosophy skills at their job. This is a big problem.

The "philosopher" might discount many "job problems" as being the trivial activities of headless chickens. Indeed the whole concept of "usefulness" is open to question from a philosophical point of view. (See for example Hesse's "Siddhartha" on google books).

This is the point which renders your question "problematic" rather than "philosophy" itself !

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Is it proper to let religion guide medical research such as stem cell?

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the controversy around stem cell research centered around having to make human embryos to extract cells from?

0 Replies

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent wrote:

So, how is philosophy useful for everyone? Don 't tell me it is "just useful".

You just finished arguing that "useful" is situation-dependent and now you want me to explain how philosophy is useful to everyone? It isn't -- or, at least, it isn't useful in the same way to everyone in every circumstance. Philosophy is useful to the extent that it has a use. For a philosopher, philosophy has many uses. For an auto mechanic, not so much.

Really, you're asking the wrong question. Whether philosophy is "useful" or not doesn't yield any worthwhile answers. What you really want to know is whether philosophy is valuable in an absolute sense. In other words, you want to know, in William James's term, what the cash value of philosophy is.

3 Replies

@joefromchicago,

If you have a set number of candy bars and a group of people to distribute them amongst, you will need mathematics to determine how many you can give to each person.

Then you might consider who gets first and who has to wait. Mathematics cannot help you here, and neither can religion or science. Whatever you decide, it will be on the background of reasoning that is philosophical in nature. The desicion that you want to distribute them equally may also be the result of an ideal you hold as a moral standard. That's a result of philosophy.

(edit: this reply should have gone to Turning, not Joe. sorry for the mistake)

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

...but even considering the cash value approach its not linear to make such evaluation as Philosophy can hardly be distinguished from the processes of reasoning that are in use in Science...asking for the Philosophy value is like asking for the Science value, its to generalist, one rather should ask what Science or which Philosophy...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Since philosophy only seeks truth, and most people's judgement are subjective in nature, it is difficult to arrive at any agreement on settling questions about "fairness."

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Philosophy is far from useless, though granted it spends time with alot of useless questions. But that is true of most areas of human inquiry.

While genetic reseach may be a strictly scientific activity, the responsible and safe application of it in daily life is a matter of philosophy.

Philosophy is a tool, and as such it is as useful as a hammer when you have no nails to drive in, or mathematics if you don't have anything to calculate.

It is funny, but philosophy is not at all about asking profound questions. It is about reading thick books. It is hard, tough, and fun, but for so little reward, and high cost.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
This is really general. One of the point I made is that most people will not use their philosophy skills at their job. This is a big problem.

The "philosopher" might discount many "job problems" as being the trivial activities of headless chickens. Indeed the whole concept of "usefulness" is open to question from a philosophical point of view. (See for example Hesse's "Siddhartha" on google books).

This is the point which renders your question "problematic" rather than "philosophy" itself !

You don 't think working is important? Do you need food to eat? For ******* sake, are you a student? Working is hard, and let say you work from 9 to 5, have a wife to support, and a 1 hour a day of watching TV. I say it is already tiring, and time consuming.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:
So, how is philosophy useful for everyone? Don 't tell me it is "just useful".

You just finished arguing that "useful" is situation-dependent and now you want me to explain how philosophy is useful to everyone? It isn't -- or, at least, it isn't useful in the same way to everyone in every circumstance. Philosophy is useful to the extent that it has a use. For a philosopher, philosophy has many uses. For an auto mechanic, not so much.

Really, you're asking the wrong question. Whether philosophy is "useful" or not doesn't yield any worthwhile answers. What you really want to know is whether philosophy is valuable in an absolute sense. In other words, you want to know, in William James's term, what the cash value of philosophy is.

I guess you forgot. I am saying there is no unified notion of "useful", and that what we really have are situation dependent cases. This is why there is a need to offer a unified notion, and I propose one possible solution that appeals to labor market demand. Understand? What you ought to argue for is that there is already a unified notion of what is "useful". Understand?

3 Replies

@TuringEquivalent,

Quote:

Situation dependent cases

doesn't explain anything, because how that's interpreted will differ from those observing it. How does philosophy relate? It's all subjective to the observer.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Yes, C.I., it's all a matter of interpretation!

0 Replies

@TuringEquivalent,

Turing, you must recognize that so narrow a criterion as "labor market demand" (or even William James' broader metaphorical "cash value") is too limited for philosophical discussion.

1 Reply

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent wrote:

I guess you forgot. I am saying there is no unified notion of "useful", and that what we really have are situation dependent cases. This is why there is a need to offer a unified notion, and I propose one possible solution that appeals to labor market demand. Understand?

Sure I understand. You propose that we define "useful" as "having economic value." What you haven't proposed is any justification for that definition.

TuringEquivalent wrote:

What you ought to argue for is that there is already a unified notion of what is "useful". Understand?

I already did argue that. Remember?

1 Reply

Philosophy is useful in the sense that it provides an entertaining demonstration of how to parley a ready wit into cash at high rates of gearing just as footballers parley being big and fat to their advantage when, from an evolutionary point of view, they are maladapted for ordinary life.

And it does provide some interesting insights at times. Schopenhauer's essay on women I thought quite enlightening. Something worth bearing in mind.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote:
Situation dependent cases
doesn't explain anything, because how that's interpreted will differ from those observing it. How does philosophy relate? It's all subjective to the observer.

Do you even get the point, or do you like to jump in our other peoples discussion? My point is not that there are situation dependent cases( I assume that is the case), but I say there is a lack of a unified notion, thus, warranted a need for a unified notion that is based on market demand.

1 Reply

@TuringEquivalent,

TE, Here's a clue for you! a2k is an international chat blog, and anyone can post whatever they please. That's beyond the US Constitution.

I get the point; but you seem lost in your own world. Your idea about "market demand" as it pertains to philosophy is a tangent without any value. Market demand is about commerce, not philosophy.

2 Replies

Is philosophy useless?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know