[Serious] Generally speaking, is philosophy a worthwhile subject of study?

[Belacqua]

Generally speaking, is philosophy a worthwhile subject of study?

I'd say that this question is a part of philosophy. So if anyone sees fit to answer this question, they are doing philosophy. Anyone who took the time to answer, has tacitly answered "yes." 

Any discussion of what it's worthwhile to do is a value question. It can't be answered by science. How we should spend our time is a part of the question "What is a good life?" and that is the basic question of philosophy.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It’s worthwhile to study philosophy if you wish to talk intelligently about philosophy. Beyond that, the options are pretty limited. You can teach philosophy, write books about philosophy, or host a quiz show. That’s about it.

Boru

[vulcanlogician]

Of course it depends on what you mean by philosophy.  Logic and critical thinking, both useful, aren't ordinarily included under that rubric.

I tend to put those two things at the core of philosophy, as things that define philosophy.... differentiates it from "normal" kinds of investigation. Especially critical thinking. Philosophers often want to object to and/or justify things that are taken for granted. That's critical thinking on steroids.

Could you elaborate on what you meant by " Logic and critical thinking, both useful, aren't ordinarily included under that rubric.".... ?

[Angrboda]

Of course it depends on what you mean by philosophy.  Logic and critical thinking, both useful, aren't ordinarily included under that rubric.

I tend to put those two things at the core of philosophy, as things that define philosophy.... differentiates it from "normal" kinds of investigation. Especially critical thinking. Philosophers often want to object to and/or justify things that are taken for granted. That's critical thinking on steroids.

Could you elaborate on what you meant by " Logic and critical thinking, both useful, aren't ordinarily included under that rubric.".... ?

Just that people generally don't think of those things as branches of philosophy like epistemology or ethics. They're more a "used in" than "part of". In much the same way that math isn't normally grouped under science. Logic as a field of study is properly a part of philosophy, but that's different from study and acquisition of skill in lower-order classical logics.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Would it make sense to say that logic is to philosophy what statistics is to science?

[vulcanlogician]

It’s worthwhile to study philosophy if you wish to talk intelligently about philosophy. Beyond that, the options are pretty limited. You can teach philosophy, write books about philosophy, or host a quiz show. That’s about it.

Boru

I remember listening to a philosophy lecture where the lecturer noted that philosophers are not generally concerned about sex, wealth, pragmatism, as most people generally are. And I agree. Philosophers are more concerned with principles and truth and stuff like that.

But not in an elitist way as the priests are. In kind of a nerdy way. Like, they are intellectually interested in principles and truth because those things seem more interesting and/or crucial... not because "only sinners and schmucks concern themselves with sex and wealth." But perhaps because it really appears that these things are possibly more crucial.

If you look at things in a certain way, philosophy is utterly useless. Even hardcore philosophy fans will tell you, life may be better without philosophy. Philosophers are certainly dispensable according to many metrics.

But... c'mon. Isn't asking what is REALLY true arguably worthwhile. Any answer to this question that hints at "yes" immediately paints philosophy as being valuable... at least to some degree.

---

I tend to put those two things at the core of philosophy, as things that define philosophy.... differentiates it from "normal" kinds of investigation. Especially critical thinking. Philosophers often want to object to and/or justify things that are taken for granted. That's critical thinking on steroids.

Could you elaborate on what you meant by " Logic and critical thinking, both useful, aren't ordinarily included under that rubric.".... ?

Just that people generally don't think of those things as branches of philosophy like epistemology or ethics.  They're more a "used in" than "part of".  In much the same way that math isn't normally grouped under science.  Logic as a field of study is properly a part of philosophy, but that's different from study and acquisition of skill in lower-order classical logics.

That makes sense, and I agree with that. But I'd add: "Philosophy without logic is like science without math."

[Belacqua]

Philosophers are more concerned with principles and truth and stuff like that.

I suspect this is true of a lot of philosophers in academia.

There are many many non-academic, real-world issues which require philosophical thought, however. 

~ abortion
~ capital punishment
~ limits on government / limits on individual freedom
~ right to autonomy over one's body -- Is it OK to choose self-destructive behaviors like taking heroin? Is it OK to change your gender? 
~ Do animals have rights, or is it OK to destroy their habitats for profit?
~ Do religious principles have a place in political debate?
~ Do living people have a moral obligation to preserve certain things for future generations?
~ What should be taught in public schools?

There are many others. (I'm not asking for the answers to these questions here -- only pointing out that to get an answer demands philosophical thinking.)

None of these is likely to be settled, in a particular case, by a professional philosopher. But deciding each issue, even for your local district, demands philosophical thought. And the better the quality of the thought is, the better the decision will be.

[vulcanlogician]

Philosophers are more concerned with principles and truth and stuff like that.

I suspect this is true of a lot of philosophers in academia.

There are many many non-academic, real-world issues which require philosophical thought, however. 

~ abortion
~ capital punishment
~ limits on government / limits on individual freedom
~ right to autonomy over one's body -- Is it OK to choose self-destructive behaviors like taking heroin? Is it OK to change your gender? 
~ Do animals have rights, or is it OK to destroy their habitats for profit?
~ Do religious principles have a place in political debate?
~ Do living people have a moral obligation to preserve certain things for future generations?
~ What should be taught in public schools?

There are many others. (I'm not asking for the answers to these questions here -- only pointing out that to get an answer demands philosophical thinking.)

None of these is likely to be settled, in a particular case, by a professional philosopher. But deciding each issue, even for your local district, demands philosophical thought. And the better the quality of the thought is, the better the decision will be.

All the things you listed could be better understood by a critical examination of principles and truth. And academic philosophers explore all the issues you listed.

IMO, philosophy is not wholly an academic thing. It goes all the way back to Socrates (who had no degrees) and Plato (who practically invented academia).

I do like your general sentiment though. I think "academic philosophy" is only one kind of philosophy. And the academic portion is overemphasized in modernity. Philosophy that happens around Walden Pond may be just as good as that which happens among Stanford intelligentsia.

[Disagreeable]

For me there's, on the one hand, truly great analytic philosophy, which is wonderful. On the other hand there is truly great eastern philosophy (such as Zen, done well for example) which is wonderful. And then there's the truly great philosophy in-between those two poles. Which is wonderful.

Those are the wonderful parts on one side, the other side and in-between. 99% of all of philosophy, however—isn't actually very good. But that applies to everything else too . . . not just philosophy.

[Belacqua]

All the things you listed could be better understood by a critical examination of principles and truth. And academic philosophers explore all the issues you listed.

IMO, philosophy is not wholly an academic thing. It goes all the way back to Socrates (who had no degrees) and Plato (who practically invented academia).

Yeah, my point is just that philosophical issues are not just abstract things that don't have an effect on regular people's lives.

The obnoxious man who stands up at the school board meeting and hollers about mask mandates is trying to think about the rights of individuals vis-à-vis government authority, as well as the degree of bodily autonomy we have, even to the point of choosing to do foolish and risky things. He probably isn't thinking about those topics very well. But his inability to reason well may come in part from the fact that people have told him philosophy is only for eggheads and not something he has to worry about. 

Philosophical issues are everywhere in society. 

Plato (who practically invented academia).

Well, remember that "Academy" was the name of the park where Plato used to meet his students, so that's where the word comes from. It was just a park in those days, and hadn't yet taken on the nuances the word has now. It was named for Academus, a man who saved Athens from being plundered by revealing the location of the kidnapped Helen.