RE: Generally speaking, is philosophy a worthwhile subject of study?
February 15, 2022 at 11:45 pm
(This post was last modified: February 16, 2022 at 12:40 am by vulcanlogician.)
(February 15, 2022 at 9:57 pm)Foxaire Wrote: Some people consider philosophy a weak science. I just consider it weak sans the science affiliation. It can be a fun and interesting study if not taken too seriously.
Hey man! Nice to see you!
Curious, how seriously should philosophy be taken?
(February 15, 2022 at 8:09 pm)brewer Wrote: I don't believe I said art and poetry were impractical, but would say a fare share is not my thing. I was a musician (mainly piano/sax) and vocalist thru high school. When has entertainment been ever considered impractical?
Never. It isn't impractical. And I don't think you said it was. I think we agree here. But I think we also agree, entertainment qualifies as "food for the mind." It's in the same camp as philosophy as something whose ultimate practicality can be questioned. You could live life without entertainment. But would you want to? Same goes for philosophy. I wouldn't want to live life without the ability to ask fundamental questions about justice and epistemology. Neither would you.
Quote:What makes you think that justice and human rights is only derived only from philosophy?
I never said "justice and human rights is derived only from philosophy."
That part of the post was arguing that philosophy may indeed be practical. I mentioned John Locke. I said he was instrumental in bringing about the implementation of inalienable rights in America. I was just demonstrating that philosophy has practical value there, and I prefaced those statements saying that.
Unless a person thinks human rights are trivial, worthless, or dispensable (which I know is not you, brew) they must admit that philosophy has at least some practical value. Locke didn't only posit inalienable human rights. He named three rights that he thought were fundamental: life, liberty, and property (*sounds vaguely familiar*). He also argued that an ideal government would have three branches (judicial, legislative, and executive). Locke's work in political philosophy obviously influenced the Founding Fathers' ideas.
He was perhaps indispensable in the formation of our constitution as we know it. If Locke was never born, or if he hadn't elected to spend copious amounts of time formulating and defending his ideas, who knows what our constitution would say?
