(February 15, 2022 at 3:19 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(February 12, 2022 at 7:03 pm)brewer Wrote: Yes, I think food for the mind is important, but that food is found in many ways that do not need to be based in philosophy. Can a mechanic improve his skills with learning more and better techniques? Can someone learning to sew expand their mind and creativity? Or the first farmers testing how to improve production? Questions and resultant answers or acquisition of skills (mind food) do not need to be derived only from philosophy.

Yes. Those things qualify as "food for the mind." 

So does art, literature, poetry, and (sometimes) network TV. I've been watching Star Trek Discovery. How practical is a science fiction show about aliens and space fantasy exploration?

Let's say we remove a couple "impractical" things from humanity's buffet of food for the mind. Let's take away art and poetry. Is humankind better off? I'd say no. I would say they are worse off. Art and poetry enhance humankind by bestowing catharsis and sometimes creative power to those who appreciate them. It's hard to quantify what practical use art or poetry has, but it could be argued that such things are --indirectly-- of practical use. I would argue that philosophy is one of those things (like art and poetry) that enhance the human experience. Is philosophy all-important? No. But take it away from humankind, and we will have lost something immensely valuable.

***

I could also argue that philosophy IS of great practical import. In America we have inalienable human rights. The concept of inalienable human rights didn't come out of thin air. Nor did it come from someone trying to found a great nation which protected its citizens liberty via the concept. 

It came from a thinker who asked the question: What is justice? 

Inalienable human rights played a crucial role in his answer to that question. He then formulated a set of logical arguments bolstering his position. An intelligent person (Thomas Jefferson) found those arguments convincing and applied those principles to his work in nation building.

The reason Jefferson was convinced is because John Locke made a convincing case that relied on few assumptions. That's what philosophers do. And that can be of immense practical value sometimes.

I don't believe I said art and poetry were impractical, but would say a fare share is not my thing. I was a musician (mainly piano/sax) and vocalist thru high school. When has entertainment been ever considered impractical?

What makes you think that justice and human rights is only derived only from philosophy? I don't think early tribes spent to much time developing a logical argument for 'killing within tribe not good'. Yes philosophy added to reason but not necessarily action.

(February 15, 2022 at 8:09 pm)brewer Wrote: I don't believe I said art and poetry were impractical, but would say a fare share is not my thing. I was a musician (mainly piano/sax) and vocalist thru high school. When has entertainment been ever considered impractical?

What makes you think that justice and human rights is only derived only from philosophy? I don't think early tribes spent to much time developing a logical argument for 'killing within tribe not good'. Yes philosophy added to reason but not necessarily action.

Whether the arts are "practical" or not is a philosophy question.

The foundations of justice and human rights is a philosophy question.

(February 15, 2022 at 8:35 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(February 15, 2022 at 8:09 pm)brewer Wrote: I don't believe I said art and poetry were impractical, but would say a fare share is not my thing. I was a musician (mainly piano/sax) and vocalist thru high school. When has entertainment been ever considered impractical?

What makes you think that justice and human rights is only derived only from philosophy? I don't think early tribes spent to much time developing a logical argument for 'killing within tribe not good'. Yes philosophy added to reason but not necessarily action.

Whether the arts are "practical" or not is a philosophy question.

The foundations of justice and human rights is a philosophy question.

Talk to vulcan about the arts.

Are you stating that prior to modern philosophy that there was no societal justice or rights? Tell me about the philosophy of early human tribal societies justice and human rights, other than the practical 'survival and reproduction' which all species demonstrate. Not every thing about 'justice' or 'rights' is derived from philosophy.

Some people consider philosophy a weak science. I just consider it weak sans the science affiliation. It can be a fun and interesting study if not taken too seriously.

(February 15, 2022 at 9:44 pm)brewer Wrote: Talk to vulcan about the arts.

Because you don't wish to examine your own beliefs?

Quote:Are you stating that prior to modern  philosophy that there was no societal justice or rights?

No, nothing like that. I am saying that all thinking about social justice and human rights is philosophy.

Quote: Tell me about the philosophy of early human tribal societies justice and human rights, other than the practical 'survival and reproduction' which all species demonstrate.

Is a drive for survival and reproduction in any way related to social justice or human rights? Or is it just a kind of biological selfishness?

Quote: Not every thing about 'justice' or 'rights' is derived from philosophy.

All thinking about these subjects is philosophy. 

The extent to which justice and rights are derived from biology is a philosophical question. Biology can tell us what our drives and instincts are, but can't tell us whether these things constitute justice or rights. If you assume they do, then you're making unthinking assumptions.

(February 15, 2022 at 9:57 pm)Foxaire Wrote: Some people consider philosophy a weak science. I just consider it weak sans the science affiliation. It can be a fun and interesting study if not taken too seriously.

Hey man! Nice to see you!

Curious, how seriously should philosophy be taken?

---

(February 15, 2022 at 8:09 pm)brewer Wrote: I don't believe I said art and poetry were impractical, but would say a fare share is not my thing. I was a musician (mainly piano/sax) and vocalist thru high school. When has entertainment been ever considered impractical?

Never. It isn't impractical. And I don't think you said it was. I think we agree here. But I think we also agree, entertainment qualifies as "food for the mind."  It's in the same camp as philosophy as something whose ultimate practicality can be questioned. You could live life without entertainment. But would you want to? Same goes for philosophy. I wouldn't want to live life without the ability to ask fundamental questions about justice and epistemology. Neither would you.

Quote:What makes you think that justice and human rights is only derived only from philosophy?

I never said "justice and human rights is derived only from philosophy."

That part of the post was arguing that philosophy may indeed be practical. I mentioned John Locke. I said he was instrumental in bringing about the implementation of inalienable rights in America. I was just demonstrating that philosophy has practical value there, and I prefaced those statements saying that.

Unless a person thinks human rights are trivial, worthless, or dispensable (which I know is not you, brew) they must admit that philosophy has at least some practical value.  Locke didn't only posit inalienable human rights. He named three rights that he thought were fundamental: life, liberty, and property (*sounds vaguely familiar*). He also argued that an ideal government would have three branches (judicial, legislative, and executive). Locke's work in political philosophy obviously influenced the Founding Fathers' ideas.

He was perhaps indispensable in the formation of our constitution as we know it. If Locke was never born, or if he hadn't elected to spend copious amounts of time formulating and defending his ideas, who knows what our constitution would say?

(February 12, 2022 at 9:35 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Philosophy is wonderful to discuss with friends over drinks (Symposium, anyone?) but is rather useless as a source of knowledge.

I don't think philosophy is a very good source of knowledge either. It's a pretty good "source of theories" though. It's a decent source of good questions too. (If you value good questions.)

Where are these philosophical dogmatists you keep referring to? What philosopher says you need to believe something "because they say so"? William Lane Craig? I mean, there's more to philosophy than Craig.

Sometimes, you don't need to do anything but show up to the bar in order to philosophize. But other times, you need to do six and a half hours of reading and try really hard to understand something before the discussion can transpire. Treating the whole of philosophy like some quaint "night out for drinks" is inaccurate.

(February 16, 2022 at 12:55 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: I don't think philosophy is a very good source of knowledge either. It's a pretty good "source of theories" though.

Precisely.

It's part of a healthy breakfast.  Not the coffee or eggs.  More like toast, because it's something to build on, but not something that get's you going.

As far as making it your thing, someone has to teach it and try to be the next omitted due to the serious tag.  So if that's you, go for it.

(February 16, 2022 at 12:55 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: Treating the whole of philosophy like some quaint "night out for drinks" is inaccurate.

He says philosophy is just something you do over drinks, and then says it's not something you get much out of.

Somebody is being shallow here, and it's not Heidegger.