I don't see the value in studying philosophy. Can someone enlighten me?

I suppose studying philosophy encourages a more elastic mindset, the ability to approach a problem from a different angle. But I must admit, I never had any interest in the field.

I didn’t like it, personally…but it’s one of those things that make you go “hmmmm”—it’s just a part of education, and I think all education is valuable.

Sometimes I desire to become a philosopher so I can spend my day truly thinking and pondering. I get glimpses of that lifestyle by answering on this very site. What makes anyone’s opinion worth anything? It’s sometimes good to look back and see what’s already been pondered by greater minds than mine.

Their opinions are not more valuable than yours or mine.

However, the point of studying old philosophers’ opinions is to see how they influenced other philosophers, and to see how they influenced others, and so on—the point is to trace the evolution of ideas and see how we ended up with the worldviews we have today.

In particular, what we call “science” today was once called natural philosophy—Newton and Liebniz considered themselves philosophers. Much of our system of classification and logic can be traced back to Aristotle. The idea of “atoms” can be traced back to ancient Greek philosophers.

A lot of philosophical ideas show up in pop culture, as well. The Matrix, for example, is really a retelling of Plato’s cave allegory.

@dynamicduo , how do you know their minds were greater than yours? Because they are revered and you aren’t? That is no indicator. Paris Hilton is revered in some circles.

@The_unconservative_one – They are greater than mine only because I have deemed them to be. And I’ve done that by evaluating their life achievements and deciding that their thoughts and words have value to me personally.

I never base anything on popular opinion. Paris Hilton is only revered to me if she’s on a pizza (sorry, a joke from another thread).

Philosophy can teach you how to critically think about a variety of issues and to do so logically, consistently, and thoughtfully in a way that integrates these subjects and help you find answers.

Literally, philosophy means “love of wisdom.” Wisdom is a quality that processes knowledge and aids us in making the right choices.

Not that I’ve done a lot of it myself, but a major benefit is that philosophers are good at making us re-examine things that we normally take for granted. So much of what we think we know is actually just based on assumption, taking what appears to be the case as being actual fact. Philosophers, ideally, don’t allow themselves to take such things for granted. They require a more rigorous standard of proof before building a whole system of belief on some “fact”.

Just think how much of the trouble you, and mankind in general, have gotten into because of false assumptions (Iraq War, anyone?). Questioning why we should believe even basic things is a healthy exercise.

I feel like I learn the most when I have a major shift in perception. Many people seek to constantly change, to evolve, in their beliefs and perceptions. I believe that studying philosophy teaches the brain how to be open and receptive to a possible paradigm shift. The “what if” game that goes on during a philosophical discussion is an exercise to prepare the mind for an idea or change, much like training in the offseason prepares the body for future challenges on the field.

I’m not sure if that made sense.

I think you should check it out before declaring you do not think it has value:

“A stupid man’s report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.”
Bertrand Russell

“The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.”
Aristotle

“A hero is born among a hundred, a wise man is found among a thousand, but an accomplished one might not be found even among a hundred thousand men.”
Plato

“We do not know what we want and yet we are responsible for what we are – that is the fact.”
Jean-Paul Sartre

@The_unconservative_one, I don’t think a philosophers’ positions are necessarily greater (and certainly not more true) than the stuff we believe today.

But at the same time, a lot of old philosophers deserve our respect, and I think their minds are certainly greater than anyone’s I know. You have to remember that many of these people were working with incredibly limited information and still managed to make remarkable discoveries on how things work. Many people have said that Newton is probably the most brilliant person in history, and I’m tempted to agree—the connections he managed to draw based on such limited tools are clearly the result of a genius. The same can probably said for Aristotle.

Both Aristotle and Newton, as it happened, were wrong about a lot of stuff. But they were still brilliant minds.

@Ender , one can learn critical thinking skills withou invoking the teachings of Plato or nietze (I’m sure that spelling is wrong)

How old are you? The older you get the more value you see in it. Building on the wisdom of the ages has more value when others begin to look to you for wisdom.

@The_unconservative_one Right, it is a little difficult to take you seriously as a great thinker when you can’t be bothered to check a spelling you don’t know: Friedrich Nietzsche.

@Marina, give the guy a break. I doubt Nietzsche knew how to spell his own damn name.

@Qingu LOL!! Can you imagine what he went through in Kindergarten trying to learn how to spell his name!!?? :)

@Marina , if you are going to be anal about spelling errors of an uncommon name, then It is hard to take you seriously at all. Secondly, your previous comment suggests that basically philosophy provides us with some good quotes. People of today also make good quotes.
@Juid, I am 43 years old. I find some value in some of the quotes, but I don’t find value in pondering questions like if a tree makes a noise when it falls. OF COURSE it does, the sound is made even if no one hears it. I didn’t say it is completely useless.
@3 or 4 monsters, yes that makes perfect sense.

before I get started on importance of philosophy, tell me…do you see the value in studying anything intently? which subjects?

@Simone_De_Beauvoir , I see the value in studying almost all subjects intently.

But if no one is there to hear the noise, how do you know that it made a noise?

The issue here is not about a tree and a noise. It’s using the tree and noise to think about perception and existence as a whole.

And please, @The_unconservative_one, in this community we have guidelines that encourage proper spelling, as well as discouraging personal attacks. We highly encourage respect of all people and things. This includes respecting Nietzsche and looking up how to spell his name correctly.

@dynamicduo , you call me on responding to a personal attack, yet you defend the attacker? Puh-lease.

I’m not calling you out. I’m gently reminding. I’m sorry you’ve interpreted it that way.

@dynamicduo , How do I know it made a noise? I know because physics never wavers in this regard. Vibrations create sound. It exists. If you are talking in a room alone, how does anyone know you are making sound? Sounds like a foolish question doesn’t it?

Studying different philosophies from different people is healthy, I believe. It gives you a more rounded perspective on issues, it helps you understand other peoples’ religions/politics/thoughts, and it helps you build your own philosophy. It’s easier to live and make decisions if you have your own philosophies on things. That’s not to say it can’t be an open philosophy, or ever-changing, but it’s good to know who you are a little bit!

@The_unconservative_one, It certainly didn’t sound foolish back when we did not have the concrete knowledge of physics we have now, during the times of these philosophers. Plus, the tree example gave you something, it reinforced your belief in science and the way the world works.

@ubersiren , thank you for a reasonable answer to the question. It seems like the philosophy fans here get touchy as hell when you question their heroes.

Speaking from personal experience, they (philosophies) can completely flip the script on how you view the world;I mean dramatically. They influence how you interact with it. I always say: philosophy is like the firmware of society. It’s important to all of us whether we realize it or not. Some people are more prone to living out the philosophies while others are prone to thinking up new philosophies for people to live by, while still others are prone to thinking up new philosophies and living by them themselves. This last part is hardest to do. Something I’m struggling with myself. All the fucked-up-ness in society is the result of a bankrupt philosophy; a philosophy known as nihilism.

@The_unconservative_one ; and THAT IS the discussion the question is supposed to stimulate. You say “of course” others question, listening to each others logic makes you stretch your brain, which helps you solve other complex problems in life.

Philosophy is interesting only if you ask the questions that philosophers think about. Are you curious about what it means to exist? Do you wonder if you have a purpose, or if there is any meaning to life? Do you wonder where meaning comes from?

Really, if you write down all the questions you have, you can look and see if some of them require philosophy to answer. If none of them do; if they are like “who hit the most home runs in 1942?” Then you have no need for philosophy.

If you do have questions of the former sort, then it is very interesting to understand the history of humanity’s attempts to answer those questions. The relevance of history is the same everywhere: if you want to know what has already been tried, and the results of those trials, look to history. If you don’t mind reinventing the wheel every step of your life, then ignore all that humans have ever done or thought before.

@Judi , okay, going by your logic. Please stretch my brain by telling me how it possibly could NOT make a sound?

There is no direct evidence that it DOES make a sound since any intervention on your part would change the variables. Then again, That sounds like a whole new question string

@daloonagain , I have, as most of us have, pondered those questions. However, I have learned that none of us have the answers to those questions. I find that those who think they have those answers tend to be religious types and they generally claim to have it all figured out.

There are many philosophers out there, and not all of them are religious, and not all claim to have an answer. Even so, it is interesting to read those who rely on religion or who think they have an answer, if only to see how they arrived at that answer.

@The_unconservative_one
then why don’t you see value in studying philosophy intently..imo, it encapsulates within itself how one can approach all the other subjects that one can study…

The “tree falling/sound” question is semantics. Do you define sound as physical vibrations or as data interpreted by a brain?

@Judi , there is evidence that it does. All empirical evidence shows that when trees fall they make noise.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir , I see value in studying some philosophy. My objection is to excessively pondering questions that are either obvious, or un-knowable.

@The_unconservative_one ; I edited my answer because I am by far not the smartest jelly on fluther. I see it more as a debate question and like to understand the argument from both sides.

@qingu, which is my point exactly. it is a question of semantics. Word games. I once had a discussion with a guy on wis.dm, who claimed to have definitive proof that God exists but when I asked for that proof, he started going into semantics arguments about the word suffering. “What does suffering mean?” To me, that is an avoidance tactic and counterproductive. We know that the tree makes the sound. If I broadcast radio waves and no receiver picks them up, am I broadcasting?

Philosophers just aren’t as quick to claim that something is “obvious” or “unknowable” as you are. If you’re happy living by your current standards, just skip the philo.

@Harp , tell me how it could fall without making a sound, since it isn’t obvious to you.

It goes way beyond that, @The_unconservative_one . How can we know that any phenomenon exists without an observer?

@The_unconservative_one
the questions with obvious answers weren’t always so
the answers, i mean, weren’t obvious
and came to be so by way of philosophy
though philosophers won’t say anything is obvious

@The_unconservative_one, it’s a mistake to reduce all of philosophy to word games, though. When originally posed, the question about a tree falling helped to shed light on an important area of thought: subjectivity. It’s easy for us to take this area of thought for granted because we’re all quite familiar with it today, but like I said—it’s important to trace ideas back to their roots.

Do you think studying history is important? Studying philosophy is basically like studying the history of ideas.

Absolutley GREAT answer @Qingu !

as some of my fellow Flutherers know – I am indeed studying philosophy and I love it.

It seems Daloon and Marina have said a lot of what I was thinking of saying… and Harp for that matter…

Philosophy for me has been my saving grace…it is helping me understand so many things that it’s just impossible to go into them here (and you’re not interested anyway…)

As a child I thought about things in a different way (like i think most children do) and was silenced a lot of time for being to “complicated” and inquisitive… philosophy is a deep subject and affects us all every day of our lives… to disregard it would be to disregard the very existence of yourself…perhaps???

@Simone_De_Beauvoir , that makes more sense. Why don’t people acknowledge that when the question was originally asked, they didn’t know the answers. However, to ask that same question now, when we do know the answer seems pointless.

@Harp , that isn’t a reasonable answer. You claimed that the answer isn’t obvious. I’m asking you to tell me how the answer could possibly be anything other than yes.

I thought it was pointless when in university I was forced to study the mathematics behind 3D computer graphics. However it let me gain an appreciation for the tools we have now, which make this knowledge handy but not required. If I had not been forced to study the mathematics, I would not know how difficult it really is.

There is lots of value in looking back at our roots. Philosophy is just one way to do this.

@lynneblundell , Oh, it’s so important that to disregard it is to disregard myself? Okay.

Thank you all for enlightening me on this subject. I must be moving along now.

You mean like this?

@The_unconservative_one : Dear, I dont know if you’ve seen, but you can “edit this response” and add on new thoughts instead of leaving several one liners in a row. It just makes the thread a little neater. Cheers. :)

Bye

@Qingu “Studying philosophy is basically like studying the history of ideas.” <—what a perfect way to phrase this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWLG9feziRU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnodPfR1X2U
:D

Ugh!

lol, i agree with your sentiment @The_unconservative_one.

I hate trivia. I just like good ideas. I don’t care WHO said it, generally.. as long as it makes sense.

One thing that really bothers me is when people RELY on the greats of history so much that they won’t acknowledge a new great idea until finally: “Oh! Einstein said that? Okay, then that makes sense to me now.” lol. This is such a fallacy and it illustrates how some people don’t really think their way through life’s issues. They ONLY rely on the advice of various so called “authorities.”

It’s sheepish a little and mentally lazy by classic definition.

@ninjacolin , FINALLY someone who gets what I’ve been trying to say. Some of these folks take it all so seriously too. One person told me that to deny it was to deny your own existence! PLEASE.

Another opinion I had when I was in school was that Philosophy is a virus. Philosophers train philosophy students to become philosophers so that the can train more students to become philosophers who train more students who… ad nauseum. lol.

meanwhile, they don’t actually DO anything, hahaha.

okay fine, it’s not perfectly true that they are useless. I think the people who become philosophers write books that everyone else in the world can learn from. Their first job is to figure out the world. Their second job is to find a way to make the answers make sense to the general public so that they, being engineers and lawyers and cooks and civilians and law makers, can apply new ways of understanding the world to their respective positions.

Everyone is good at something. Philosophers are good at thinking abstractly. This is useful to society for sure. Other intelligent people can take their advice and find practical applications for it to benefit themselves and the people they have influence over.

blah.. not making my point very clearly.. but i hope this makes some sort of sense.

I dunno. If you wanted to install solar collectors on your roof, would you just go ahead and do it? Hire a contractor and tell them to do what they think best? Of would you research it, so you knew enough about it to keep the contractors from ripping you off?

You make the decisions. You can do it on your own, or with the help of those who have been there before.

If you are complaining about how poorly philosophers communicate, that’s another thing entirely, and it has little to do with philosophy. A lot of philosophers I’ve known are very egotistical, and figure they don’t owe anyone outside their field anything. I think that’s an unfortunate point of view. You find it all too often in academia.

@daloonagain “A lot of philosophers I’ve known are very egotistical, and figure they don’t owe anyone outside their field anything. I think that’s an unfortunate point of view. You find it all too often in academia.”

agreed.

that’s what makes Stephen Hawking so awesome. His ability to disseminate vast technical data to us simple people is truly remarkable.

Yes, he is a good example, and there are several others, too, lucky for us. I’d like to see more in the field of philosophy, and literary criticism (have you tried reading Derrida?), as well.

Studying it formally has no appeal to me, in all honesty. However, if one has the inclination, to explore philosophy (& there’s all sorts) on your own does much to widen and even deepen your experience of the world.

But it’s a problem, just like studying anything intellectual, to do so in a way/to the point where your mind’s actually constrained by your knowledge. The point of it isn’t to store up in your head, but to better understand new experiences/phenomena, or better express yourself. Retaining your natural creativity is far more valuable than being bogged down by prepackaged ideas you’re unable to fully digest or expand upon (or otherwise reconstitute… anything meaningful changes everytime it passes into a mind; ideas are partly meant to take on some of the characteristics of whoever’s thinking them).

Also, knowing too much about one thing without being able to recognize the value of the countless other subjects you know little of basically turns a person into an asshole, or even somewhat of a limited thinker, unable to learn much beyond their own chosen subject for assuming everything worth knowing lies within their little sphere. Every subject is inherently entangled in all the other aspects of the world, so this also really would distort one’s grasp of reality more than is necessary (we all distort reality in our minds, at least from others’ viewpoint). Humility ain’t a bad thing.

But yeah, if philosophy isn’t your thing, that’s cool – it’s not for everyone… tho there’s a lot of different types out there (some are now considered their own discipline separate from philosophy), so . However, it’s worthwhile to respect what value other’s find in their own favorite corner of reality, even if you don’t understand why, for instance, they enjoy studying rocks for a living… further, stuff we are interested in, or stuff that benefits us (even if it’s duller than dirt to us), is worth having some vague appreciation for, even in a shallow sorta way.

Haven’t read Derrida but i’ve seen many people quote on another forum.. I think I’m going to have to give it a try.

@ninjacolin: He was too hard for me to read.

you mean he sucks as a writer? lol

was there ever a philosopher who didn’t?

I really don’t know if it’s useful in an everyday sense, but I do know that when I read up on the various philosophies my mind expanded. It was thrilling and complex, and ultimately made me very sad. Human nature gets in the way every damn time! Still, I’m glad I did it and would encourage anyone to do the same.

absolutely, augustlan. philosophy is amazing and i highly recommend contracting the virus at least for a little while. it’s still my favorite subject.

i don’t care for the historical aspects of it (the who’s-who game) but the things those people have come up, i think, is important for anyone to learn.

@The_unconservative_one ’Some of these folks take it all so seriously too. One person told me that to deny it was to deny your own existence! PLEASE.’ uh…that will be me…

@daloonagain Berlin was an excellent writer and so was Mill in fact as are some of the more modern philosophers of out times.

But that’s just my opinion…I think i’ll leave now as there doesn’t seem to be a great deal of respect circulating…

@Qingu “Studying philosophy is basically like studying the history of ideas.”

Noooooo. It’s not. That’s what it’s become but that’s not what it’s supposed to be. Philosophy is supposed to be an active process, not a study of something that’s already over and done with. The history of philosophy should be another subject altogether. Philosophy is the study of ideas; historical or new. Everything hasn’t been thought of already. Not even close.

@resmc , you stated, “However, it’s worthwhile to respect what value other’s find in their own favorite corner of reality, even if you don’t understand why, for instance, they enjoy studying rocks for a living… further, stuff we are interested in, or stuff that benefits us (even if it’s duller than dirt to us), is worth having some vague appreciation for, even in a shallow sorta way.”

Asking this question was about trying to find the value in it, not to ridicule it.

Nice, Jiminez. That’s more eloquent. So, I guess I ought to say: “I like Philosophy.. but I don’t care much for History of Philosophy.”

@Jiminez, I don’t disagree with you. I will say, however, that I think it’s unfortunate that we think of “science” as separate from “philosophy” today, because I think science is where the most important active philosophical processes are being done. (Science used to be called “natural philosophy.”)

I also think it’s always important to study the history of what you’re doing.

@ninjacolin The history of philosophy is a subject that would likely take a lifetime to learn. It annoys me when people expect you to know every nuance of every past philosopher’s every idea. That ruins the dynamic kind of conversation that could be taking place, I think. Then again, I’ve been the person who was familiar with a certain philosophy while the other person wasn’t and it’s frustrating from that point of view, as well. It’s still possible to have a conversation of pure ideas if you’re that person, though.

@Qingu I think that’s unfortunate also. It’s not inaccurate to say that science is a philosophy (albeit an applied philosopy)* and philosophy is a science. To depend on scientific breakthroughs for your philosophical insights, I think, is wrong, though.

And it is important to study the history of what you’re doing. You’re right about that. Probably the first one to study is determinism. It’s just not possible to know everything and it’s unfair to hold it against someone if they don’t know something. It says nothing about their intellect.

*Many would disagree with this.

@Jiminez, I don’t think you necessarily have to depend on scientific breakthroughs for your philosophical insights. But I do think your philosophical insights ought not contradict scientific breakthroughs.

The biggest offender here is “philosophy of the mind.” Lots of “philosophers” still believe the mind is basically a magical entity. They buy into the ancient belief in dualism, that there must be some nonmaterial substance that animates the matter of the brain to produce subjective experience. But science shows that this is absolute nonsense; dualism is false. And neuroscience in particular is making breakthrough after breakthrough explaining how the physical matter of the brain creates and interacts with conscious thought.

So I do believe that philosophical insights should always be informed by scientific breakthroughs.

I guess if you live your life on a superficial level, there is no need for philosophy.
Some people are interested in looking for deeper meaning to life’s questions.
That’s how mankind progresses, aside from the accidental.

I must confess to have but scanned the many responses to this question, so forgive me if I am repeating something. I just wanted to throw in my two cents.

As someone has undoubtedly already pointed out, philo-sophy mean the love of wisdom, and in its first articulation in the literature of Plato, it is, to my understanding, represented as a way of life that is both essential to and a symptom of, any truly prosperous human society, and more specifically, any truly prosperous city. At its roots, it is not a “body of knowledge” or a “field of study” to be systematically organized and exhausted. Approached in this way, it is no wonder that one would see know use in it, because, in fact, it is not instrumental at all. It is a habit of thought and socializing at which we aim, and which we practice with our friends in order to better understand the place of our thoughts within our own being, and the place of our own being in the city. It is the end to which prosperous, free life tends, and in no “useful” way contributes to the attainment of any property or design. Indeed, in its original and most pure conception, the love of wisdom, borne out in the philosophic habits of thought and conversation in the city and the soul is happiness itself.

Academia, and specifically academics, have recast this way of life in their own image under career pressure and the envy of the progress “natural philosophy” made in its transformation into mathematical physics. Concerning this point I think it is useful to introduce a distinction between the history of philosophy and philosophy itself, and to acknowledge that the history of philosophy, as studied by actually reading the works of the dead guys, is incredibly helpful in the practice of philosophy, since it provides excellent examples of the habits of thought and conversation which befit the philosophic way of life and aid in the shareable articulations of the unspoken assumptions we hold about the world, and the consequences they hold for domestic and civic life, and our relationships with that certain divinity of self-reflection that every human mind most certainly possesses, however one might choose to conceive or characterize it. The history of philosophy furnishes many lovely examples of the beauty and power in the many forms of human thought that are inspiring and instructive as to how to live philosophic life in which concern for the self knowledge of our friends and ourselves is always the principal concern. The opinions of dead philosophers are often more valuable than our own because their opinions are expressed in polished writings that are the result of a lifetime of the cultivation of philosophic habits, and thus, even if their conclusions are not always the most helpful or even important to us, an appreciation for their methods of arriving at them can be very helpful in exploring our own opinions.

All value and worth in modern society from perhaps the time of Machiavelli and his contemporaries has been judged by the criterion of “usefulness” without really defining toward what end any pursuit or action is meant to be instrumental or “useful,” except insofar as it tacitly presumes the ultimate primacy of material wealth and military and political power in the acquisition of civic stability and individual happiness. Within this context, philosophy may not have a place at all, and it is up for one to decide for himself whether or not that is the case.

But we will always carry assumptions of which we are unaware, which color our actions and opinions, and which, unexamined, undermine the dignity of our species in its ability to make themselves conscious of its own thoughts if it so wishes. And I think, for the dignity of our being human, philosophy will always have a place in our lives together, as any thoughtful person with sufficient leisure to reflect upon it would, I think, conclude.

Whether this rambling response was of any help or not, I recommend reading Plato’s Meno, of which I believe the Jowett to be an excellent translation.