How worthless is Philosophy?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Who I'm mostly referring to here are those Twitter or Facebook users with "Philosopher" in their bio, usually their only way of expressing ideas is not to write a book or even just make a speech, but to post on these websites. I can't name any off the top-of-my-head, but they're usually White, millennial, Atheistic or Agnostic, and left-leaning. This is not to say there are NO good modern philosophers, however the title is muddled by Twitter users.

Oh, I see what you mean. I was thinking of published, professional philosophers. There are some pretty good ones of those.

But if you're including us amateurs, and Reddit and Twitter and places like that -- then, absolutely. Some of what goes on is shocking. 

Probably you're heard of Sturgeon's Law: "90% of everything is crap." But he was writing before the Internet. By now I think we've got the number up to about 99.

An earlier version appears in Kipling’s ‘The Light That Failed’, and isn’t quite so cynical:

‘Four-fifth’s of everybody’s work must be bad. But the remnant is worth the trouble for its own sake.’

Boru

[vulcanlogician]

Should this discipline be required in college? 

It looks as though you may have wandered off again, and I certainly wouldn’t blame you for doing so. I thought I’d type a response to your OP, though, based on a good old philosophy text.

I know you’ve worked on Plato’s Phaedrus in the past, as I recall you mentioning it here before. It seems to me that parts of that dialogue are relevant to the issue at hand.

As you remember, the dialogue begins as a discussion of relations between an older man and his adolescent boyfriend. Such relationships are taken for granted, so what they’re discussing here is exactly what type of emotion and benefit should be involved.

Phaedrus has a copy of a speech by Lysias, in which the latter argues that it’s better if the two partners are not in love with one another. Or rather, it’s assumed that the adolescent won’t be in love with the older man, but the older might feel passion for the younger.

Lysias thinks of the relationship as entirely transactional. The older man gets sex and the company of a beautiful boy, and the younger one gets the practical benefits of increased status and guidance into the political life of the city. The more elite one’s mentor is, the more one will benefit, which means that the more beautiful a boy is the more he will have his choice of mentors.

Both Lysias and Socrates, in his first speech, argue that love can only interfere with this transaction, because love, as is well known, tends to make people irrational. A passionate mentor may behave in an embarrassing way in public, which would work against the gain in status that the boy wants. He also might become jealous, or ruin himself financially trying to please his boyfriend. So a cool, transactional, useful relationship is best, they argue.

Plato doesn’t make this explicit, but many commentators over the years have seen this as a description of transactional relationships in general, not only those between boyfriends. A life which is supposed to be utilitarian, commercial, and practical can only be disrupted by non-practical erotic passions.

Then remember Socrates’ second speech, in which he dialectically goes beyond what he just said before. He does not deny that erotic passion can make a person irrational, but he says that some kinds of irrationality are good. And here you have to remember what Plato means by the full weight of the term Erotic. It isn’t only sex. It is also a necessary drive toward the highest forms of understanding. So Socrates concludes that a transactional, passionless relation will be useful in a practical life, but that a philosopher must surpass this. He needs non-transactional, passionate attraction to what is best and highest. 

Socrates also makes it clear that such passion will have negative effects in a practical sense. Most people will consider this philosopher to be crazy. He will not fit well into the smooth-running utilitarian life of the city. 

So I think we can answer your OP question from Plato’s perspective. Whether philosophy is worthless or not depends on what you want. If you want to fit smoothly into the flow of society, it will not be helpful. If you take a philosophy class with a transactional goal in mind, you will not benefit. Saying “I will commit to three credit hours of Intro to Philosophy, and in return I expect to receive X benefit,” won’t work. A lot of people seem to think that taking philosophy in college will help a person to think more clearly or to be more rational. Judging by the conversations of people who have taken some philosophy in college, this certainly doesn’t seem to be the case. There might be philosophy classes in this world which have that benefit, but it’s clear that most of them don’t. 

Learning philosophy (maybe in a class, maybe not) may have great benefits, but they are not of the transactional, practical type. Expecting to get that sort of thing from a college class is not reasonable. The kind of benefits that one actually might get are not the kind of thing that practical societies tend to value.

Sorry to necro here. But this is an amazing post. I simply had to respond. I miss conversing with you, Bel. Because you are an insightful dude. The Symposium is an incredible work (as is Phaedrus). And to get into the meat of what you said, we need to discuss one of those two works.

But I wanna talk about the Republic here. Because a lot of your points pertain to it.

***

Yeah. I don't do forums like I used to. I pop in every few months and talk to people. I miss chatting with folks like you and Nudger. But I found it's not so good to involve myself in internet shit on a daily basis. Because it's mostly shit. You know it. I know it. And Nudger knows it. Even Camus knows it. (I miss you guys btw. Especially Camus.)

***

I'd like to share a passage from the Republic that exemplifies what you mean.

"Then, Adeimantus, I said, the worthy disciples of philosophy will be but a small remnant: perchance some noble and well-educated person, detained by exile in her service, who in the absence of corrupting influences remains devoted to her; or some lofty soul born in a mean city, the politics of which he contemns and neglects; and there may be a gifted few who leave the arts, which they justly despise, and come to her;—or peradventure there are some who are restrained by our friend Theages’ bridle; for everything in the life of Theages conspired to divert him from philosophy; but ill-health kept him away from politics. My own case of the internal sign is hardly worth mentioning, for rarely, if ever, has such a monitor been given to any other man. Those who belong to this small class have tasted how sweet and blessed a possession philosophy is, and these are unable to resist the madness of the world;and have also seen enough of the madness of the multitude; and they know that no politician is honest, nor is there any champion of justice at whose side they may fight and be saved.Such an one may be compared to a man who has fallen among wild beasts—he will not join in the wickedness of his fellows, but neither is he able singly to resist all their fierce natures, and therefore seeing that he would be of no use to the State or to his friends, and reflecting that he would have to throw away his life without doing any good either to himself or others, he holds his peace, and goes his own way. they therefore in order to escape the storm take shelter behind a wall and live their own life. He is like one who, in the storm of dust and sleet which the driving wind hurries along, retires under the shelter of a wall; and seeing the rest of mankind full of wickedness, he is content, if only he can live his own life and be pure from evil or unrighteousness, and depart in peace and good-will, with bright hopes."

Even Plato, who obviously espoused how valuable philosophy is, made sure to point out that philosophy is nothing more than a "small remnant" in the grander scheme. But, as I think Plato would agree, it's still a valuable thing. And indispensable, despite it's being less important than other fields of knowledge, it's still ESSENTIAL. Or perhaps, FUNDAMENTAL.

This is discussed by Plato in Phaedrus. But it also features in the Symposium. I think Diotima's Ladder says what Phaedrus was trying to say better than Phaedrus said it. (Although Phaedrus said it pretty good too.) But (y'know) I bet you and I agree on which was the better work.

[The Grand Nudger]

The axial philosophers of the east started from a different place and ended up with wildly divergent conclusions about what philosophy was primarily for. Nietzsche pointed this out in comparing the two - with western philosophy as being full of theological statements and virtues - and eastern philosophy being comparatively naturalistic and practical. The reason I point this out is because it might be all the more surprising, then, to realize that both sets ended up on the same sort of "fate of the philosopher" even as they disagreed on his (and thus philosophy's) use to the state and fellows.

Laozi says that the ruler with the highest virtue doesn't deliberately operate with his rulings. He conforms to the nature and flow of things. To my mind, this is an analog for the man taking shelter under the wall. The text gets more explicit in parts - particularly with respect to the ideal state. A small state of nothing but people leaning under a wall. Unencumbered by desire or ambition, living simplistic and private lives, whose only goal is to be personally virtuous and thus reduce some small measure of what both moralizing philosophies see as the fallen or chaotic nature of the world.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The axial philosophers of the east started from a different place and ended up with wildly divergent conclusions about what philosophy was primarily for.  Nietzsche pointed this out in comparing the two - with western philosophy as being full of theological statements and virtues - and eastern philosophy being comparatively naturalistic and practical.  The reason I point this out is because it might be all the more surprising, then, to realize that both sets ended up on the same sort of "fate of the philosopher" even as they disagreed on his (and thus philosophy's) use to the state and fellows.  

Laozi says that the ruler with the highest virtue doesn't deliberately operate with his rulings.  He conforms to the nature and flow of things.  To my mind, this is an analog for the man taking shelter under the wall.  The text gets more explicit in parts - particularly with respect to the ideal state.  A small state of nothing but people leaning under a wall.  Unencumbered by desire or ambition, living simplistic and private lives, whose only goal is to be personally virtuous and thus reduce some small measure of what both moralizing philosophies see as the fallen or chaotic nature of the world.

The ‘chaotic nature of the world’ has always been better addressed by things like sanitation,  vaccines, and agriscience than by philosophy.

In fact, I’m hard pressed to think of a single practical problem of human existence that has been solved by philosophy.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, though it needs to be mentioned that the difference between eastern and western axial philosophies in this regard leans more toward your own point of view. From a naturalistic and practical pov those are all the things you should do - as opposed to trying to solve those problems by appealing to gods or immaterial ideals, for example. Only an unvirtuous ruler would insist that his people "be better" in order to be less sick.

You can see how this ruler would fail the test, even if they believed that "being better" was a way to be less sick, of recognizing the flow™ of said people. An analog sentiment in western philosophy would be "faith without works". It can never be stressed enough that while western philosophy is characterized by the attempt to satisfy some ideal, eastern philosophy is much more concerned with promoting social order. In western philosophy, doing something you abhor just because it promotes social order is, broadly, a bad compromise - but justifiable or exemptible. In eastern philosophy, it's a good one - laudable and exemplary.

[Belacqua]

It looks as though you may have wandered off again, and I certainly wouldn’t blame you for doing so. I thought I’d type a response to your OP, though, based on a good old philosophy text.

I know you’ve worked on Plato’s Phaedrus in the past, as I recall you mentioning it here before. It seems to me that parts of that dialogue are relevant to the issue at hand.

As you remember, the dialogue begins as a discussion of relations between an older man and his adolescent boyfriend. Such relationships are taken for granted, so what they’re discussing here is exactly what type of emotion and benefit should be involved.

Phaedrus has a copy of a speech by Lysias, in which the latter argues that it’s better if the two partners are not in love with one another. Or rather, it’s assumed that the adolescent won’t be in love with the older man, but the older might feel passion for the younger.

Lysias thinks of the relationship as entirely transactional. The older man gets sex and the company of a beautiful boy, and the younger one gets the practical benefits of increased status and guidance into the political life of the city. The more elite one’s mentor is, the more one will benefit, which means that the more beautiful a boy is the more he will have his choice of mentors.

Both Lysias and Socrates, in his first speech, argue that love can only interfere with this transaction, because love, as is well known, tends to make people irrational. A passionate mentor may behave in an embarrassing way in public, which would work against the gain in status that the boy wants. He also might become jealous, or ruin himself financially trying to please his boyfriend. So a cool, transactional, useful relationship is best, they argue.

Plato doesn’t make this explicit, but many commentators over the years have seen this as a description of transactional relationships in general, not only those between boyfriends. A life which is supposed to be utilitarian, commercial, and practical can only be disrupted by non-practical erotic passions.

Then remember Socrates’ second speech, in which he dialectically goes beyond what he just said before. He does not deny that erotic passion can make a person irrational, but he says that some kinds of irrationality are good. And here you have to remember what Plato means by the full weight of the term Erotic. It isn’t only sex. It is also a necessary drive toward the highest forms of understanding. So Socrates concludes that a transactional, passionless relation will be useful in a practical life, but that a philosopher must surpass this. He needs non-transactional, passionate attraction to what is best and highest. 

Socrates also makes it clear that such passion will have negative effects in a practical sense. Most people will consider this philosopher to be crazy. He will not fit well into the smooth-running utilitarian life of the city. 

So I think we can answer your OP question from Plato’s perspective. Whether philosophy is worthless or not depends on what you want. If you want to fit smoothly into the flow of society, it will not be helpful. If you take a philosophy class with a transactional goal in mind, you will not benefit. Saying “I will commit to three credit hours of Intro to Philosophy, and in return I expect to receive X benefit,” won’t work. A lot of people seem to think that taking philosophy in college will help a person to think more clearly or to be more rational. Judging by the conversations of people who have taken some philosophy in college, this certainly doesn’t seem to be the case. There might be philosophy classes in this world which have that benefit, but it’s clear that most of them don’t. 

Learning philosophy (maybe in a class, maybe not) may have great benefits, but they are not of the transactional, practical type. Expecting to get that sort of thing from a college class is not reasonable. The kind of benefits that one actually might get are not the kind of thing that practical societies tend to value.

Sorry to necro here. But this is an amazing post. I simply had to respond. I miss conversing with you, Bel. Because you are an insightful dude. The Symposium is an incredible work (as is Phaedrus). And to get into the meat of what you said, we need to discuss one of those two works.

But I wanna talk about the Republic here. Because a lot of your points pertain to it.

***

Yeah. I don't do forums like I used to. I pop in every few months and talk to people. I miss chatting with folks like you and Nudger. But I found it's not so good to involve myself in internet shit on a daily basis. Because it's mostly shit. You know it. I know it. And Nudger knows it. Even Camus knows it. (I miss you guys btw. Especially Camus.)

***

I'd like to share a passage from the Republic that exemplifies what you mean.

"Then, Adeimantus, I said, the worthy disciples of philosophy will be but a small remnant: perchance some noble and well-educated person, detained by exile in her service, who in the absence of corrupting influences remains devoted to her; or some lofty soul born in a mean city, the politics of which he contemns and neglects; and there may be a gifted few who leave the arts, which they justly despise, and come to her;—or peradventure there are some who are restrained by our friend Theages’ bridle; for everything in the life of Theages conspired to divert him from philosophy; but ill-health kept him away from politics. My own case of the internal sign is hardly worth mentioning, for rarely, if ever, has such a monitor been given to any other man. Those who belong to this small class have tasted how sweet and blessed a possession philosophy is, and these are unable to resist the madness of the world;and have also seen enough of the madness of the multitude; and they know that no politician is honest, nor is there any champion of justice at whose side they may fight and be saved.Such an one may be compared to a man who has fallen among wild beasts—he will not join in the wickedness of his fellows, but neither is he able singly to resist all their fierce natures, and therefore seeing that he would be of no use to the State or to his friends, and reflecting that he would have to throw away his life without doing any good either to himself or others, he holds his peace, and goes his own way. they therefore in order to escape the storm take shelter behind a wall and live their own life. He is like one who, in the storm of dust and sleet which the driving wind hurries along, retires under the shelter of a wall; and seeing the rest of mankind full of wickedness, he is content, if only he can live his own life and be pure from evil or unrighteousness, and depart in peace and good-will, with bright hopes."

Even Plato, who obviously espoused how valuable philosophy is, made sure to point out that philosophy is nothing more than a "small remnant" in the grander scheme. But, as I think Plato would agree, it's still a valuable thing. And indispensable, despite it's being less important than other fields of knowledge, it's still ESSENTIAL. Or perhaps, FUNDAMENTAL.

This is discussed by Plato in Phaedrus. But it also features in the Symposium. I think Diotima's Ladder says what Phaedrus was trying to say better than Phaedrus said it. (Although Phaedrus said it pretty good too.) But (y'know) I bet you and I agree on which was the better work.

It's good to see you again! Thank you for reading my long post.

I certainly understand why you'd want to limit the amount of time you devote to the Internet chat life. It can take a lot of mental energy, and I'm sure you have lots of other good things going on. 

It does seem to me that the Symposium and Phaedrus are about the best things that human beings ever wrote down. The Symposium being the main theme, and then Phaedrus almost like a dialectical response. I have no idea if that's historically accurate -- like the order in which they were written. But that's how I use them. And the degree to which, every time I read them, I find new things I didn't notice before -- that's always a pleasure. 

I confess that I have not worked on the Republic with anything like the same degree of attention. But the passage you quote reminds me that I should! Of course the thing that everybody remembers about the book is that when real philosophers make their way out of the cave and glimpse the truth, they should go back and become the leaders of the city. But the part you quote seems to work against that. It is much more pessimistic, suggesting that those few who continue to love wisdom will inevitably be rejected by society. Far from becoming leaders, they end up with a life of (as the man said) silence, exile, and cunning. 

It looks to me as if the term "small remnant" refers not to philosophy itself, but to the few people who end up devoted to it. As I say, I have to work on that. 

But it's true that what he says here echoes the Phaedrus, in that someone who loves wisdom first and foremost will not be rewarded for it. Or I should say, will not be rewarded in any worldly, practical sense. I do think he maintains the idea that the love of wisdom is its own reward. A quiet life devoted to love what's best, instead of a chase for worldly success, will look like failure to worldly people, but is in fact the best that one can hope for in a material culture. 

There's a lot of this kind of thinking in Chinese culture, I expect you know. When political events forced the government officials out of their jobs, they retired to their (extremely beautiful) gardens, read the classics, drank tea, and wrote poetry. It might have been sour grapes, but the implication was that this was the life they had actually wanted all along. One of the most beautiful gardens in all of China is called "The Garden of the Failed Politician." (Or "Humble Administrator" in a less-harsh sounding translation.) 

I think this still makes sense. The idea of a successful life to me is not the chance to go to the Super Bowl or buy a Tesla but the ability to sit quietly in one's garden and listen to one's own thoughts. So the life of the small remnant doesn't seem so bad to me.

[neil]

The way I see it, when one has decided to go to college, they've decided to advance their knowledge and education beyond that which is achieved upon graduating from high school in a way that's different from going to a trade school. When someone goes to a trade school, they don't need to learn philosophy; they're doing so to get a day job that generally involves working with their hands - skilled manual or blue-collar labor.

The white-collar profession is associated with a college degree, but I'd say that college in that sense is the formal education approach to achieve this. I think it's possible to enter into a white-collar profession without going to college, since there are very few professions that require going to college, such as licensed and practicing lawyers, doctors, dentists, and nurses. Theoretically, in other cases you can just pick up some textbooks and become skilled enough to be useful or capable in functioning in the role of a white-collar professional.

I also don't see college as a pathway for a professional career per se, despite the fact that this is what it's mainly used for in practice; what I mean by this is that unlike a trade school - where the expectation or assumption is that once someone completes a trade school program, they proceed to fill out job applications to work in the trade that they trained in - an individual who graduates from college isn't necessarily someone who's going to automatically be looking for jobs to fill.

One example would be someone who comes from a wealthy family and doesn't need a career or job, yet are still interested in pursuing an advanced level of knowledge.

Another example would be someone who already has a job or perhaps they own a small business, and they want to go to college so they can write a book on a topic that demands or requires academic credentials.

Yet another example could be that they want to run for public office, and getting a college degree seems like an ideal pathway for this.

Maybe someone who doesn't need the money from a day job to make ends meet might be interested in learning about and exploring different places to travel to, or different cultures to understand or interact with.

One could argue that those who have the luxury of not having to work a day job and go to college do so in order to maintain their wealth status, such as by understanding how the economy, industry, and the stock market works, but there is a bit of a distinction between doing that and going to a trade school to get a career with a steady paycheck.

To me, philosophy is like a science as well as the foundation of science; it's the branch of knowledge that deals with knowledge. It seems odd to me to go to college and not be required to take some philosophy. Math and logic are tools based on axioms from philosophical principles, and all science relies on these tools.

At the very minimum, I agree that ethics and logic ought to be covered by anyone obtaining a college degree, but I think they should even be taught at the K-12 level. I think K-12 ought to cover things like the difference between statements/claims/assertions & arguments, what premises and conclusions are, what a sound argument is, how to determine whether or not an argument is valid, critical thinking skills & how to be skeptical, and the scientific method. At some point, children are too young to understand some of these concepts, and to some degree these concepts do get covered, but by the time they're halfway through high school, I think they ought to already have these skills mastered fairly well and competently.

There's a reason that society needs everyone to go through K-12 & it's not just to prepare for college, trade school, enlisting in the military, or entering the unskilled labor force; it's also for people to be able to pay their bills, taxes, manage their budget and income, and even make informed decisions. In most cases, this doesn't affect you and me, but there are exceptions, whether it's the goods or services that come to me from them directly or indirectly, or who they vote for in elections; when they make bad decisions in these cases, it can affect me in a negative & undesirable way. If fellow citizens don't have the logical and ethical skills to make the right decision when voting, by the time they're old enough to do so, that can have an adverse impact on both me and the rest of society.

The reason for a business major to take History 101 may not necessarily be to pick up on some particular historical event or occurrence that makes a day & night difference in their competency or success in running a business; the idea behind anyone working towards a college degree having to take a history course is to get the exposure to the field and concept. I suppose you could argue that we already got plenty & enough of history in K-12, in which case I would be willing to concede that perhaps there's no need for a business major to take History 101. I don't have a college business background, though, so I can't think of a rebuttal for such an argument, but someone else might be able to come along with one.

[The Grand Nudger]

If we're looking at things like laozi or republic we're looking at what were most likely composite works aimed at a mid level bureaucrat or the ruler of a small state. We've since mythologized the characters and the times and that gives us a poor intuitive impression of the nature and use of the ideas contained therein. The people who would have been familiar with these works closer to their origins would have been semi literate and semi noble. There would be no systemic education programs in place and the breadth and depth of their knowledge from what amounted to private instruction would have been comparable to contemporary grade schoolers at best. Short version of a long story is that it's entirely likely that both works were trade school material.

That they seem irrelevant to many people today wouldn't be surprising. They were irrelevant to most of the people living then as well. Neither of us are in a position to use the trade school material because we are not in the trade. That philosophy -or philosophy as it was practiced and came to be perceived- was elevated to some other status had less to do with the nature of the subject than the user demographics. They...were elevated, and so their stuff was the most cultivated stuff. To bring it back to Borus examples - ag sci would have been the lot of peasants, sanitation was shit ditch diggers work, medicine was the domain of the con artist.

We could draw another example, even older, from babylonian treatises - and the strange (to us) labor and hiring practices that they appear to have included. Where a scribe would not necessarily know how to read or write - and would pay..or better yet be related... someone who did because what they knew was what they should be hearing and what they should say in response to whatever they heard. Where most of the people who could do math could not read..or write. Where "history" was what happened at work yesterday. If we continue to add examples one thing becomes clear as day. The reason that philosophy in the west became a subject of interest for the church - and the subsequent perception in contemporary society that philosophy is for the affluent - was that the church was engaged in the same business as those bodies that had used it before. They're useful for creating the administrative apparatus of an empire, a set of SOPs so that a diverse and geographically isolated group of agents could act in unison (or close enough for government work) without explicit pre existing orders.

[no one]

According to the current market, slightly less than the talk on a cereal box.

[Belacqua]

There's a reason that society needs everyone to go through K-12 & it's not just to prepare for college, trade school, enlisting in the military, or entering the unskilled labor force; it's also for people to be able to pay their bills, taxes, manage their budget and income, and even make informed decisions. In most cases, this doesn't affect you and me, but there are exceptions, whether it's the goods or services that come to me from them directly or indirectly, or who they vote for in elections; when they make bad decisions in these cases, it can affect me in a negative & undesirable way. If fellow citizens don't have the logical and ethical skills to make the right decision when voting, by the time they're old enough to do so, that can have an adverse impact on both me and the rest of society.

This seems exactly right to me. Any conception we can have of a good society surely includes some basic minimum level of education, and good-faith efforts to get that to as many people as possible. 

I'll add some more, though, as it relates to philosophy. 

I do believe that a person can have a long happy life without ever studying philosophy. Lots of people have done that. 

Still, philosophy is something that enriches our experience. Some paintings are just good to see, and some symphonies are good to hear, and some ideas are good to think. They make life richer. Whether they have practical benefits or not is not the issue -- it is still preferable to have them in the world, as opposed to living in a world without. 

Maybe today we have a tendency to discriminate between intellectual classes when it comes to non-practical fields like philosophy. A lot of times and places have been the same, no doubt. But it's not inevitable. It's very interesting to read about 18th and 19th century England, and the intellectual life of working people. Coleridge, Ruskin, and many other thinkers gave public lectures which were very well attended by people from different social classes. It was entirely possible to work during the day selling men's hosiery and read philosophy in the evening. William Blake, for example, apprenticed to a printmaker at the age of 13, but read Locke, Berkeley, translations of the Greeks, and many other serious books in his spare time. He hung out at the shop of a radical publisher/bookseller and met many of the leading progressive intellectuals of his day. 

Naturally, Blake is in no way a typical person. But I see him as a difference in degree and not kind. Philosophy and serious literature were not restricted to those with a college degree. 

I think we should also acknowledge that philosophy is unavoidable, even if we don't want to think about it. One of the main themes of philosophy is "how should one live?" If someone is arguing that one should ignore the study of philosophy and focus on more practical pursuits, this is in fact a philosophical argument. And the argument can be improved by studying more philosophy.