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

[vulcanlogician]

"The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason."

That does not sound like defending, quite the opposite.

Let's think about what Russell is saying.

"A man who has no tincture of philosophy"-- that's not Russell taking a swipe at his detractors... or people who don't appreciate philosophy. Even people who think philosophy is worthless and take the time to argue so, have hundreds of times more than a tincture of philosophy. I think Russell is speaking hypothetically when he posits "the man with no tincture of philosophy."

The question is: where do we get our ideas? All of us (including philosophers) get the bulk of our ideas from common sense, the practices of our nation and age, and convictions that we acquire through life experience.

But, as Russell points out, "this is without the cooperation or consent of our deliberate reason." Like Belacqua has been saying, philosophy is more than just highfalutin academics. It is the simple act of questioning things using logic, skepticism, and reason. Everyone on this forum, even Ahriman, has well more than a tincture of philosophy.

"We've always understood that this law is just?" -- but is it just? Let's have a conversation about what makes a law just. Let's look at logical arguments why this law is or is not just. THAT'S philosophy.

And if there were some hypothetical person without even a tincture of THAT, then that person would only be able to believe what common sense, his nation, or age tells him is true. To Russell, philosophy is a way that an individual can break free from the mold of society and common sense. If not to incite change for the better in society, at the very least to be able to explore those ideas privately, and not believe something just because "everybody else thinks it's true."

But philosophy isn't just about having unusual ideas. It's also about testing them for strength through logical argument. That's why Socrates philosophized in the marketplace, and felt the need to challenge people who laid claim to knowledge or truth.

[brewer]

"The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason."

That does not sound like defending, quite the opposite.

Let's think about what Russell is saying.

"A man who has no tincture of philosophy"-- that's not Russell taking a swipe at his detractors... or people who don't appreciate philosophy. Even people who think philosophy is worthless and take the time to argue so, have hundreds of times more than a tincture of philosophy. I think Russell is speaking hypothetically when he posits "the man with no tincture of philosophy."

The question is: where do we get our ideas? All of us (including philosophers) get the bulk of our ideas from common sense, the practices of our nation and age, and convictions that we acquire through life experience.

But, as Russell points out, "this is without the cooperation or consent of our deliberate reason." Like Belacqua has been saying, philosophy is more than just highfalutin  academics. It is the simple act of questioning things using logic, skepticism, and reason. Everyone on this forum, even Ahriman, has well more than a tincture of philosophy.

"We've always understood that this law is just?" -- but is it just? Let's have a conversation about what makes a law just. Let's look at logical arguments why this law is or is not just. THAT'S philosophy.

And if there were some hypothetical person without even a tincture of THAT, then that person would only be able to believe what common sense, his nation, or age tells him is true. To Russell, philosophy is a way that an individual can break free from the mold of society and common sense. If not to incite change for the better in society, at the very least to be able to explore those ideas privately, and not believe something just because "everybody else thinks it's true."

But philosophy isn't just about having unusual ideas. It's also about testing them for strength through logical argument. That's why Socrates philosophized in the marketplace, and felt the need to challenge people who laid claim to knowledge or truth.

I understand what he is saying, I also understand what he was and where he came from. I don't think he had much 'practical man' real life concerns and am quite certain he considered himself superior. Hence the "one who recognizes only material needs, who realizes that men must have food for the body, but is oblivious of the necessity of providing food for the mind."

His superiority statements strike me as vary similar to the religious.

[vulcanlogician]

I understand what he is saying, I also understand what he was and where he came from. I don't think he had much 'practical man' real life concerns and am quite certain he considered himself superior. Hence the "one who recognizes only material needs, who realizes that men must have food for the body, but is oblivious of the necessity of providing food for the mind."

His superiority statements strike me as vary similar to the religious.

Do you not think "food for the mind" is important? I think it is. Even for every day folks with a plateful of practical concerns. Maybe even ESPECIALLY for those folks. Maybe "food for the mind" is just another kind of nourishment that the elites horde for themselves when it ought to be available to everybody.

I dig what you are saying Brewer. I don't like intellectual elitism much at all. I agree that privileged rich men ought not be the only ones exploring these questions. But that has little to do with the value of the questions themselves.

[brewer]

I understand what he is saying, I also understand what he was and where he came from. I don't think he had much 'practical man' real life concerns and am quite certain he considered himself superior. Hence the "one who recognizes only material needs, who realizes that men must have food for the body, but is oblivious of the necessity of providing food for the mind."

His superiority statements strike me as vary similar to the religious.

Do you not think "food for the mind" is important? I think it is. Even for every day folks with a plateful of practical concerns. Maybe even ESPECIALLY for those folks. Maybe "food for the mind" is just another kind of nourishment that the elites horde for themselves when it ought to be available to everybody.

I dig what you are saying Brewer. I don't like intellectual elitism much at all. I agree that privileged rich men ought not be the only ones exploring these questions. But that has little to do with the value of the questions themselves.

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.

[arewethereyet]

Philosophy is too abstract for me. It think that's the right way to say it. But I love to learn - feed the mind. Right now I am in the process of learning a new software for work and will be coming up with a new way to present daily/weekly/monthly information to the owner and also for me to review to catch things that are off. In the last two years I have taken up making quilts. Though I get some ideas online, I like coming up with my own twist on other's ideas to either adapt to what materials I have on hand or to change to something I like a little better. I do crossword puzzles and other puzzles to keep sharp.

I agree with Brewer, there are a lot of ways to feed the mind.

[GrandizerII]

Do you not think "food for the mind" is important? I think it is. Even for every day folks with a plateful of practical concerns. Maybe even ESPECIALLY for those folks. Maybe "food for the mind" is just another kind of nourishment that the elites horde for themselves when it ought to be available to everybody.

I dig what you are saying Brewer. I don't like intellectual elitism much at all. I agree that privileged rich men ought not be the only ones exploring these questions. But that has little to do with the value of the questions themselves.

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.

This sounds to me like you're doing quite some philosophy yourself here.

[brewer]

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.

This sounds to me like you're doing quite some philosophy yourself here.

I suppose I could have made a carpenter/chair comment.

[polymath257]

Philosophy is most useful and important when it pushes us to question our assumptions, to wonder if we might not have the answers we think we have, and to explore what we really mean when we talk about certain types of things.

It is most useless when it thinks it has answers, proclaims how things must be, and insists that only one viewpoint can be correct.

Philosophy is wonderful to discuss with friends over drinks (Symposium, anyone?) but is rather useless as a source of knowledge.

[Belacqua]

Philosophy is wonderful to discuss with friends over drinks (Symposium, anyone?) but is rather useless as a source of knowledge.

That depends on how you define "knowledge." 

It's wonderful as a source for certain kinds of knowledge.

---

Then there's also the issue, I don't know whether this is valid or not, that it seems philosophers aren't necessarily always even making an argument, that could be reduced to such a logical form, more just making observations and asking questions, which may eventually feed into an argument, but don't necessarily do so in their own right, thus making it even harder to discern what is relevant when trying to reduce a large body of text to a simple logical argument.

This is certainly fair. There are different kinds of philosophical texts, with different ambitions. 

This seems to be the case right from the start. Plato's conversations bring up various ideas and possible answers which are discussed and then put aside. His characters tell myths to illustrate what an answer would be like, without actually giving an answer. 

This frustrates people who expect every text to be like a science book, with the answers written out in simple declarative sentences and little blocks of text inset in the page to define the hard words. But, as with all good books, Plato demands that we use our brains to their very limit, and his texts' value lies largely in that they have provoked inconclusive conversation for a very long time. 

Aristotle, arguably, is more in line with what modern people want. He doesn't use myth or allegory, he tries to build up declarative statements into logical arguments to arrive at clear conclusions. So he's a model for some later types, and you can categorize people into Plato types and Aristotle types. Both can be fantastically difficult. And this is not made any easier by the fact that some people (Nietzsche and Adorno, among others) think that writing their ideas in simple, third-grade level sentences, would actually contradict their ideas, and argue tacitly against them. Oversimplifying is falsifying. If the "medium is the message," then a difficult medium is an important part of the meaning. 

Modern people tend to forget that there are other ways of constructing a text besides the way that a science book or a good newspaper article is written.

you are highly immersed in the subject as a whole... or at least within the particular branches of it that interest you.

Thank you, this is kind of you to say. 

I've been at it an embarrassingly long time now. And I did take the time to get an advanced degree in a related field, so that was a few years of swimming in the deep end. 

But I'm frequently reminded that I'm at a low level compared to many others. For example my own research referred to Jacob Boehme's writings quite a bit, and showed the link between that and later German Idealism, particularly Hegel. And Boehme's importance in England. But recently I've come across a vein of research showing Boehme's dominance in the other wonderful, but less read, philosophers like Schelling -- this is terra incognito for me, and I would love to live long enough to read it all. 

But if you are feeling a little imposter syndrome, or just that you're a in a bit over your head, that's a good thing. The opposite -- to believe you know more than you do -- would be far worse. (And there are plenty of people like that.) The fact that you don't believe you know The Truth is extremely important.

[polymath257]

Philosophy is wonderful to discuss with friends over drinks (Symposium, anyone?) but is rather useless as a source of knowledge.

That depends on how you define "knowledge." 

It's wonderful as a source for certain kinds of knowledge.

Mostly the self-knowledge that we don't have many answers.
From what I have seen, philosophy is very good at asking interesting questions that make us pause. That is a good thing.
But it is very bad at actually answering those questions.
And it is worst when it clings to old answers and claims they are the only possible answers.