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

[polymath257]

a good way to begin a philosophy paper nowadays.

It's frustrating to me how "polymath" always makes claims that are replete with philosophy, in order to criticize philosophy. He doesn't seem to realize he's doing the very thing he says has little value.

There are so many assumptions going unexamined there. For example, he thinks that philosophy would be good if it were a source of theories that could be tested by empirical science. This is a value judgment which of course isn't itself testable by science. It's his philosophy. 

His untestable philosophy is that testable things are good. And he thinks this philosophy is good.

If all the philosophers gave up and became scientists, this would probably make him happy. And then all of his unexamined philosophical assumptions could go completely unchallenged by anyone. 

It tries a person's patience.

Once again, I *like* doing philosophy. it is very fun as an amusement between friends over drinks. My criticism is that it takes itself too seriously and seems to think it manages to find knowledge.

And, once again, philosophy is best when it is investigating assumptions and asking questions and worst when it thinks it has answers.

I am very interested in the history of ideas. The question of how we got to the (admittedly limited) understanding we have today is fascinating to me. Philosophy was a central part of that development for ages. it was exploring the different possibilities as it saw them at the time and that advanced our ability to analyze the world around us.

But I think we need to acknowledge that the metaphysics that has been handed down for the last 2500 years is fundamentally wrong. Again, looking at alternatives would be a very good job for philosophers, but they seldom seem to understand enough of what *physics* is saying to realize its impact on *metaphysics*. In the mean time, physics makes advances, simply bypassing what philosophers say because they don't say anything relevant.

This is quite different than what was the case not all that long ago. Then, philosophers understood the current scientific notions and adjusted their metaphysics to align with what had actually been discovered. 'Keeping the appearances' was seen as important to philosophy. That seldom seems to be the case these days.

---

Well, I can point to Kant who said that Euclidean geometry is synthetic a priori knowledge. Then non-Euclidean geometry came along.

Or Aristotle who claimed that any type of 'motion' (which , in his context meant any change) required a force or a cause. Then Newtonian physics came along where uniform motion is natural and needs no cause.

Or I can point to Aquinas, who spent an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out how angels can move based on Aristotelian physics.

Good criticisms of Kant, Aristotle and Aquinas. But weren't we trying to criticize philosophy in general?

I'm not even sure I agree that philosophy is a good source of theories any longer. it was until the rise of science, I agree, but for the last 200 years or so, I have seen no philosophers add to the list of testable theories. Kant's proposal of an 'island universe' (which we know of as our galaxy) was perhaps the last good contribution from a philosopher. Certainly there has been nothing offered since the rise of modern science that has actually impacted science at all.

In philosophy, we have theories like logical positivism that express the things you are saying. If you want to defend logical positivism, you can do so within philosophy. I'm not saying that's what you ought to do; maybe that's not your cup of tea, polymath-- and that's fine. But if you thought a good defense for logical positivism or radical empiricism could be made, and you felt like making one, philosophers are the ones who are interested in what you have to say.  If you're correct in your assumptions and logic, we're the ones who care that you're correct.

Logical positivism and radical empiricism are supported by strong arguments. IMO, they survive the kitchen sink test. Great theories. Very solid positions. Most contemporary philosophers acknowledge this. Even detractors are careful to say how strong and reliable empirical observation is. If someone is an ardent Aristotelian, that's not philosophy's problem. That's their problem. Philosophy is just as determined as you are to refute Aristotelianism, perhaps even more so.

You can't just say philosophy is always wrong, citing "those damned Aristotelians," without also acknowledging how many philosophers agree with your assessment of Aristotle. "Aristotle is wrong" is quite a good way to begin a philosophy paper nowadays.

The logical positivists had a lot of good things to say, but they tended to devolve into a metaphysics that was mostly linguistic. it is more denial than actually grappling with the issues.

And yes, I understand that many philosophers have gone beyond Ari and Aqui. But I find it interesting that whenever metaphysics comes up, those are the positions most often taken (or fairly small variants).

Also, I do not claim that philosophy is always wrong. But I do think that the times it is right are mostly accidental. I don't see any philosopher today making deep observations that really bring out the nature of things in a way that is useful for, say, physicists. Compare to Lucretius, who essentially noted Brownian motion as evidence of the atomic theory (an observation that was later used by Einstein to prove the modern atomic theory).

Even the scholastics managed to do more than today's philosophers. At the very least they managed to introduce the notion of inertia, which had some major implications to later physics.

What substantial idea has philosophy (as done by a philosopher, not a specialist in the area of study) given in the last 200 years that has actually played a role in physics? or chemistry? or biology? or geology?