How worthless is Philosophy?

[Belacqua]

I haven't read much Plato, but the question of how worthless philosophy is may be something I have some thoughts about.  When we're talking about how much something is worth, different standards may be at play, and often people use the most disadvantageous standard when talking about something they don't like.  This leads to rather biased assessments.  An assessment can come from a purely subjective standpoint, as in chocolate ice cream being worthless because I don't like chocolate ice cream.  Alternatively one can try rational justification which ultimately leads to subjective values, but ones which are more universal.  

Commonly, it is compared to the instrumental utility of science.  I think this is a bit misleading as science itself is pretty useless except insofar as its accuracy in describing reality can be instrumentally useful in the development of technology.  Knowing Einstein's theories alone is pretty inutile.  Turning that knowledge into GPS satellites on the other hand, useful.  I think this distinction is overlooked in criticizing philosophy.  By itself, it may also be inutile, but in as much as it accurately describes something real, it can be turned into human technology and thought technology.  Curmudgeons may complain about the uselessness of post-modernism, yet use logic to do it.  Science fans may argue the uselessness of philosophy, yet be the first to turn around and make use of the concept of falsification in their arguments.  And nobody serious would consider the question of a TOE without thinking of Godel being in the background.  And quantum physics is overflowing with philosophical questions.  These indirect uses of philosophy get dismissed by philosophy's critics and overlooked by the ignorant.

But instrumental utility itself is only one of multiple possible standards.  Nobody would complain that because nobody built a boat with them, the Mona Lisa and Tolstoy's War and Peace are worthless.  You'd have to be a boorish Philistine to assert such things.

Yes, I think these are all good points. When we ask "is it useful?", we have to ask "useful for what?" 

Nowadays usefulness is generally interpreted in terms of 1) making money, or 2) increasing efficiency/reducing labor. 

Socrates is aiming at self-knowledge. So when we ask whether his philosophy is useful or not, I think we'd want to ask whether we know ourselves better through his methods or not. If we do, then it's useful. 

And I think the goal of self-knowledge is generally to ask, "Am I a good person or not?" Obviously, the utility of making money or increasing efficiency is no help to the world if the people who are doing those things are bad people.