How worthless is Philosophy?

[FrustratedFool]

Well, ironically, I think we'd have to start with defining what we mean by 'useful' and 'philosophy'.

[Ahriman]

Philosophy is kewl. But that's it. It's not a good way to know anything, beyond what that one person thinks of that one thing. If you want to go deeper, philosophy will at some point have to be abandoned.

[Belacqua]

Well, ironically, I think we'd have to start with defining what we mean by 'useful' and 'philosophy'.

And by defining the words, of course, we'd be doing philosophy!

That's why we can never get beyond it. Because the statement "philosophy is worthless" is a philosophical statement, and showing that it's true requires doing philosophy.

[Ahriman]

Well, ironically, I think we'd have to start with defining what we mean by 'useful' and 'philosophy'.

And by defining the words, of course, we'd be doing philosophy!

That's why we can never get beyond it. Because the statement "philosophy is worthless" is a philosophical statement, and showing that it's true requires doing philosophy.

I was under the impression that philosophy was a more specialized sort of thing than that.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I agree that there's probably some esoteric, impractical value to philosophy, but vulcan's original point seems unassailable. What value is there in an engineering student being forced to study philosophy in order to get her engineering degree? How is three credit-hours of Introduction to Metaphysics going to make her a more competent, more employable engineer?

I can't imagine than any of her job interviews will include being asked, 'On the issue of free will vs determinism, would you place yourself more in the camp of Spinoza or Bergson?'

Boru

[Belacqua]

And by defining the words, of course, we'd be doing philosophy!

That's why we can never get beyond it. Because the statement "philosophy is worthless" is a philosophical statement, and showing that it's true requires doing philosophy.

I was under the impression that philosophy was a more specialized sort of thing than that.

I got that feeling from your earlier post -- you may be using the word in a more specific way than I am. 

To me, any question about values is a philosophical question. So "is it a waste of time to do philosophy?" is a question that ultimately concerns how it is good to spend one's time. This can't be demonstrated by science. 

Very roughly, I suppose that just about any question that falls outside science's purview is likely to be philosophy. But I grant that may be too general. 

Do you have a more specific definition?

[FrustratedFool]

I agree that there's probably some esoteric, impractical value to philosophy, but vulcan's original point seems unassailable. What value is there in an engineering student being forced to study philosophy in order to get her engineering degree? How is three credit-hours of Introduction to Metaphysics going to make her a more competent, more employable engineer?

I can't imagine than any of her job interviews will include being asked, 'On the issue of free will vs determinism, would you place yourself more in the camp of Spinoza or Bergson?'

Boru

In many ways I'd agree.  At that level, for that subject, generic philosophy would seem largely useless.  Like getting credit for sport or religion or a great books series, or mandating certain weird rules or ethical requirements and so on.  None have much to do with engineering.  

I guess a lot, though, depends upon the ethos of that particular institution - maybe they are trying to form well-rounded adults as well as engineers.  Dunno.  A lot of institutions have wider goals than just getting students the highest grade in a particular subject.  

To play devil's advocate, though, I could imagine a philosophy course specifically designed to make someone a better engineer: maybe some work on critical thinking and logic; some work on the ethics of materials and environmental concerns; some work on ethics of employment and business; some work on aesthetics and the nature of beauty; and the such like.

[Ahriman]

I was under the impression that philosophy was a more specialized sort of thing than that.

I got that feeling from your earlier post -- you may be using the word in a more specific way than I am. 

To me, any question about values is a philosophical question. So "is it a waste of time to do philosophy?" is a question that ultimately concerns how it is good to spend one's time. This can't be demonstrated by science. 

Very roughly, I suppose that just about any question that falls outside science's purview is likely to be philosophy. But I grant that may be too general. 

Do you have a more specific definition?

I would say it's philosophy if it's meant (by the observer) to explore a deeper level of reality. If it's not meant to do that, I wouldn't call it philosophy. For me, it is not philosophy to ask myself, "Should I do those dishes right now?"

[The Magic Pudding.]

Philosophy of yore is now of the zeitgeist, who needs to be taught?
If insufficient students choose navel studies, philosophers should get a real job.

[Belacqua]

I would say it's philosophy if it's meant (by the observer) to explore a deeper level of reality. If it's not meant to do that, I wouldn't call it philosophy. For me, it is not philosophy to ask myself, "Should I do those dishes right now?"

Oh, well, that's fair. "Coke or Pepsi?" is hardly a philosophical question. 

Traditionally, I think philosophy breaks down into big issues of metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, and other questions that can't be settled through science. 

To ponder usefulness, as in the OP, we'd have to do philosophy and define what "useful" means, what kind of usefulness is good, whether non-useful questions are worthy of our attention, etc. We live in a very utilitarian kind of culture, so "useful" appears to be an intrinsic good, though this is a question that only philosophy can address.