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

[Belacqua]

polymath seems to be under the impression that philosophy is in competition with science, but philosophers aren't (generally speaking) trying to use philosophy to do the same sorts of stuff that science can effectively do. And of course metaphysics has its uses, as it can guide and further expand upon what the sciences say, thus hopefully leading us in the right directions when seeking further answers via science.

The story is that Socrates did research on the natural world when he was young -- more like science. But as he got older he decided that knowing all about the natural world meant nothing if we are bad people. Ethics, and the wisdom of how to live well, is something worth spending one's time on.

But the majority of people in every generation would vote to condemn Socrates.

---

I think, Its for exceptional and intelligent people who have time and money to spend. Not for poor working class people.

This is really interesting. I agree that generally there is a class difference in who does philosophy, or who can do it.

For a very long time, the "Liberal" in "Liberal Arts" meant "at liberty" -- that is, not having to work for a living. Aristotle is clear on this: a life of the mind is only available for (what we would call) the idle rich.

There was a time, though, when this barrier was somewhat less. The intellectual history of England from the beginning of the modern economy until the advent of mass media includes many examples of non-elite people with the ability to participate. 

This is mostly skilled workers. Laborers were always probably too tired to study. But people like tailors, hat-makers, land surveyors, and others who needed a decent amount of smarts to succeed were often very brainy people.

There were only two universities, and these were for either the children of the very rich, or for people training to be Christian ministers. Nobody else could go. But they developed lots of alternative methods for intellectual activity. For example, lecture series were wildly popular. An intellectual who was a good speaker could draw large crowds from among the middle class. Books were fairly cheap. Many bookstores were also small publishers, and became gathering places for people to discuss the ideas in the publications. 

The story of Joseph Johnson's bookstore is wonderful to read. He was a progressive publisher whose shop attracted Thomas Paine, William Blake, Mary Wollstonecraft, William Godwin, and several other important thinkers. Blake, for one, never had a formal education at all. But we know he read just about all the philosophy and theology that was in print, annotated them, understood them, and argued about them. It was not strange for a guy who spent daylight hours making money from engraving (before magazines had photographs) to spend the rest of his time on philosophy. Later, of course, George III put Johnson in jail for thinking a little too much about how government might be better.

I think this has ended largely because of mass media. TV and movies and popular novels are like fast food, very attractive and cheap, and deadly to those who consume them. Remember that Dickens' novels were serialized and were wildly popular among all social classes, but today these are considered difficult classics that only eggheads will read. 

Obviously if someone works two jobs and doesn't get enough sleep (which is what Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos want for most of us) he's not going to be reading books. But it doesn't have to be this way.