A Lesson in the Practicality of Philosophy I Learned Today

[Mudhammam]

In no way did I mean to imply that I devalue philosophy in general. I'm simply wondering if certain philosophical issues that seem reoccurring throughout history and more importantly, quite often have led or continue to lead to vexing disagreement, might really be considered a huge waste of time and thought; and in avoiding such buzzkills in the future, we might determine the meaningfulness of the idea at hand by its usefulness.

In terms of practicality, Chad, I think broadly speaking we must first begin by defining a concept by its real world, or rather empirical, counterpart, and asking ourselves what and how does this concept change our relation with the object-- in terms of how we come to view it, what might we do as a result, what in the knowledge we acquire enables us to ride it to further insights about the world, etc.

[bennyboy]

In no way did I mean to imply that I devalue philosophy in general. I'm simply wondering if certain philosophical issues that seem reoccurring throughout history and more importantly, quite often have led or continue to lead to vexing disagreement, might really be considered a huge waste of time and thought; and in avoiding such buzzkills in the future, we might determine the meaningfulness of the idea at hand by its usefulness.

What's a waste? As far as I can see, you live 60 or 80 years in a universe that doesn't make sense, and then you die. Refusing to talk about the fact that it doesn't make sense, or in engaging with others about it, doesn't really change the bottom line.

The thing about pragmatism is it's bullshit. Nothing is pragmatic unless it serves a goal, and without any objective goals, pragmatism is just another word for "doing the things I feel like doing," or even worse, "doing the things other people say I should be doing." I LIKE the unstable feeling that I get when I think about impractical issues. Breaking down what I think I "know" makes the universe seem bigger and more interesting, and more magical. And given that, like most adults, I'm set to live pretty much the same day over and over again, what could be more useful than that?

[Whateverist]

I would like to see more philosophers actively engage the public in ongoing public debate. If they did, the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Press, and Schultz would have their mental midgetry exposed.

I only wish I could believe that. I'm afraid the public is poorly equipped to make the comparison.

[The Grand Nudger]

In no way did I mean to imply that I devalue philosophy in general. I'm simply wondering if certain philosophical issues that seem reoccurring throughout history and more importantly, quite often have led or continue to lead to vexing disagreement, might really be considered a huge waste of time and thought; and in avoiding such buzzkills in the future, we might determine the meaningfulness of the idea at hand by its usefulness.

Yeah, well...GIGO, right? We've been engineering useless, vexing, and or deleterious shit all the while as well...of course. So how useful is either approach? I don't know....shall we ask a philosopher?

[genkaus]

In no way did I mean to imply that I devalue philosophy in general. I'm simply wondering if certain philosophical issues that seem reoccurring throughout history and more importantly, quite often have led or continue to lead to vexing disagreement, might really be considered a huge waste of time and thought; and in avoiding such buzzkills in the future, we might determine the meaningfulness of the idea at hand by its usefulness.

I think those "certain recurring philosophical issues" can be broadly divided into two categories.

One would be genuine thought problems that require rigorous examinations and broadened ways of thinking that could result in novel applications. Take Zeno's paradox for example - if you look towards the end of the link you'll find its relevance to physics and mathematics.

Other category, like finding reasons to believe in god, would be nothing more than mental masturbation. These issues keep popping up because people want to use them to justify their preconceived ideas even if they have been shown to be fallacious.

[bennyboy]

Other category, like finding reasons to believe in god, would be nothing more than mental masturbation. These issues keep popping up because people want to use them to justify their preconceived ideas even if they have been shown to be fallacious.

I agree, but with a caveat. So long as there is ignorance in the minds of people, I think they should be encouraged to form their ignorance into logical arguments. If they do, they may one day realize that supporting their world view is a highly inefficient or impossible endeavor, and that the reason for this is that they are supporting BS.

That's one of the real beautiful points of philosophy, isn't it? Having a method of determining what ideas are bad ones, and being able to explain why they are bad.

[TreeSapNest]

The only difference between the philosopher and the theoretical physicist is the physicist destinguishes between concept and reality. :-)

[Neo-Scholastic]

One would be genuine thought problems that require rigorous examinations and broadened ways of thinking that could result in novel applications…Other category, like finding reasons to believe in god,… keep popping up because people want to use them to justify their preconceived ideas even if they have been shown to be fallacious.

To my mind, establishing and building upon a foundation of absolutes is a highly practical endeavor. I think you have the order reversed. Some people search for absolutes and it just so happens that the resulting necessary truths support the classical notions about God.

In my own case, as a former atheist, I didn’t set out to justify a belief in God. Instead what I saw is that fully naturalistic philosophies lead away from, rather than toward, absolutes (nominalism and conceptualism come to mind). In doing so doing, they undermine themselves and with them the possibility of knowledge.

[Chas]

One would be genuine thought problems that require rigorous examinations and broadened ways of thinking that could result in novel applications…Other category, like finding reasons to believe in god,… keep popping up because people want to use them to justify their preconceived ideas even if they have been shown to be fallacious.

To my mind, establishing and building upon a foundation of absolutes is a highly practical endeavor. I think you have the order reversed. Some people search for absolutes and it just so happens that the resulting necessary truths support the classical notions about God.

In my own case, as a former atheist, I didn’t set out to justify a belief in God. Instead what I saw is that fully naturalistic philosophies lead away from, rather than toward, absolutes (nominalism and conceptualism come to mind). In doing so doing, they undermine themselves and with them the possibility of knowledge.

The problem is that you require absolutes. You should overcome that as it is infantile.

[genkaus]

To my mind, establishing and building upon a foundation of absolutes is a highly practical endeavor. I think you have the order reversed. Some people search for absolutes and it just so happens that the resulting necessary truths support the classical notions about God.

Nope, I got the order right - the cases where the search for necessary truths support classical notions about god are cases made specifically to justify classical notions about god.

In my own case, as a former atheist, I didn’t set out to justify a belief in God. Instead what I saw is that fully naturalistic philosophies lead away from, rather than toward, absolutes (nominalism and conceptualism come to mind). In doing so doing, they undermine themselves and with them the possibility of knowledge.

Why would leading away from absolutes undermine them and the possibility of knowledge?