A Lesson in the Practicality of Philosophy I Learned Today

[Mudhammam]

The Moral: If you're having trouble with your thermostat, don't call a philosopher...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nDOxLh6AbQ

But if you want to know whether or not your thermostat is conscious on the other hand...

On a more serious note, to what degree would you agree or disagree that philosophy ought to make some practical difference in our lives if it is to be considered meaningful? Case in point: Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the tortoise or "arguments" for the existence of God. Are these really worth the fuss if their application in practical matters amounts to zilch? (What difference does an argument for God's existence matter apart from a religious experience, which is entirely non-rational, anyway?)

[bennyboy]

On a more serious note, to what degree would you agree or disagree that philosophy ought to make some practical difference in our lives if it is to be considered meaningful?

I'd disagree with that philosophical argument much as I'd disagree with a similar scientific argument. You never know what path is going to lead to something interesting later; but you can be sure if you never push yourself to inquire, you'll never learn anything new-- except what it feels like to be boring and unoriginal.


For those who claim philosophy's a waste of time if impractical, I'd ask about the practicality of other common activities: watching Oprah reruns, playing lame phone games, jerking off. . . none of those is likely to cure cancer, either. At least philosophy has the advantage of allowing someone to think, and you don't have to be (too?) embarrassed if someone catches you doing it.

[vorlon13]

I entered the visitor center I volunteer at the other day, and the new thermostat wanted to interface with my smartphone.

I think it is unsettling.

And now this thread turns up . . .


{cue Twilight Zone theme}

[Neo-Scholastic]

I guess it depends on the meaning of practical. :-0

I do think the practice of philosophy does improve a persons relationship with the world, but only to the extent that you don't take it too seriously. It has its place. And that place, I think, is helping you to see yourself and societal systems from the outside. Plus there is the issue of authenticity. Are you living in a manner consistent with who you are? And just exactly who (or what) you are is philosophical question. For example, I am a strong proponent of existential free will. As a result I always find myself saying to myself, "I have a choice" rather than just proceeding under force of habit.

I also think philosophy forces you to step back for a moment and reflect on what really has value in your life and why.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

On a more serious note, to what degree would you agree or disagree that philosophy ought to make some practical difference in our lives if it is to be considered meaningful?

I'd disagree with that philosophical argument much as I'd disagree with a similar scientific argument. You never know what path is going to lead to something interesting later; but you can be sure if you never push yourself to inquire, you'll never learn anything new-- except what it feels like to be boring and unoriginal.


For those who claim philosophy's a waste of time if impractical, I'd ask about the practicality of other common activities: watching Oprah reruns, playing lame phone games, jerking off. . . none of those is likely to cure cancer, either. At least philosophy has the advantage of allowing someone to think, and you don't have to be (too?) embarrassed if someone catches you doing it.

Excellent points. Philosophy IS a lot like masturbation. It is safe and harmless, it's best to do it in private, and always be sure to wash your hands when finished.

Boru

[Cato]

I think philosophers could offer quite a lot to society in a manner that would easily be defined as practical, but few do. Philosophers wouldn't necessarily be relied on for answers, but would be very valuable in framing discussions. Sadly, most philosophers cocoon themselves in academia and spend their time attempting to advance a very fine technical point that only serves the discipline.

I would like to see more philosophers actively engage the public in ongoing public debate. If they did, the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Press, and Schultz would have their mental midgetry exposed.

[bennyboy]

Excellent points. Philosophy IS a lot like masturbation. It is safe and harmless, it's best to do it in private, and always be sure to wash your hands when finished.

Boru

lol, and here we are, doing it together. Could you pass the tissue?

---

I would like to see more philosophers actively engage the public in ongoing public debate. If they did, the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Press, and Schultz would have their mental midgetry exposed.

Keeping in mind that both Dennett and Dawkins are philosophers, I'd say philosophers DO engage the public very much, and with good benefit. In fact, if you list most of the top atheists in the world, they are very much engaged in the philosophies of mind, and of how to correctly establish what should be considered "real." And many are also scientists.

[The Grand Nudger]

Anyone who's ever tried to model the inner workings of a legacy thermostat like a Honeywell T87 (of Smithsonian fame) instantly recognizes the practicality of philosophy. The relationships between statements and operators is why your thermostat doesn't roast you alive when the heater comes on, or freeze you to death when the ac engages. Even today, with digitals...it's not actually as easy as a person would think to create a system capable of managing the temperature. You run into alot of counterintuitive problems that philosophers had pegged -long- before we ever got around to air conditioning. Without that knowledge, I'd hesitate to say that we never would have figured out a way...but it would have been an even bigger pain in the ass than it already is. The chipset interface from the probe to the control is pretty epic if you sit down and work out the implications. Ah, the power of negation.....

[Cato]

Keeping in mind that both Dennett and Dawkins are philosophers, I'd say philosophers DO engage the public very much, and with good benefit. In fact, if you list most of the top atheists in the world, they are very much engaged in the philosophies of mind, and of how to correctly establish what should be considered "real." And many are also scientists.

To my knowledge, Dawkins is not a philosopher. Doctor of Philosophy is simply a broad title in this case. Dawkins earned his degree in zoology. I will concede that much of Dawkins' current contribution is philosophical in nature so I can't quibble too much.

That aside, you are correct in citing Dennett; however, he is just one of the few I mentioned. I am positing the idea that philosophers en masse descend from the ivory tower and engage the public. Citing exceptions that already do this buttresses my point that by and large philosophers are preoccupied in minute technical details of philosophy, an impractical activity considering the world at large regardless of its importance to the field.

[genkaus]

On a more serious note, to what degree would you agree or disagree that philosophy ought to make some practical difference in our lives if it is to be considered meaningful? Case in point: Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the tortoise or "arguments" for the existence of God. Are these really worth the fuss if their application in practical matters amounts to zilch? (What difference does an argument for God's existence matter apart from a religious experience, which is entirely non-rational, anyway?)

I'd say that not only philosophy ought to make a practical difference in our lives in order to be meaningful, it does make a difference.

The problem I see here is that you are equating discussion of abstract principles that don't have a direct relevance to practical matters with the whole of philosophy. Firstly, a lot of philosophy does deal with very practical matters - like political philosophy. Secondly, even those abstract principles can have application in practical matters like the whole field of mathematics.

---

I think philosophers could offer quite a lot to society in a manner that would easily be defined as practical, but few do. Philosophers wouldn't necessarily be relied on for answers, but would be very valuable in framing discussions. Sadly, most philosophers cocoon themselves in academia and spend their time attempting to advance a very fine technical point that only serves the discipline.

I think you are talking more about today's academic philosophers in universities. Philosophers through history can and have made enormous practical contributions to society.

---

I am positing the idea that philosophers en masse descend from the ivory tower and engage the public.

They might if there was money in it. As it stands now, the only place most philosophers can make a living is inside the ivory tower of academia. Only a few would be capable of succeeding outside it.