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

[brewer]

"The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason."

That does not sound like defending, quite the opposite.

Let's think about what Russell is saying.

"A man who has no tincture of philosophy"-- that's not Russell taking a swipe at his detractors... or people who don't appreciate philosophy. Even people who think philosophy is worthless and take the time to argue so, have hundreds of times more than a tincture of philosophy. I think Russell is speaking hypothetically when he posits "the man with no tincture of philosophy."

The question is: where do we get our ideas? All of us (including philosophers) get the bulk of our ideas from common sense, the practices of our nation and age, and convictions that we acquire through life experience.

But, as Russell points out, "this is without the cooperation or consent of our deliberate reason." Like Belacqua has been saying, philosophy is more than just highfalutin  academics. It is the simple act of questioning things using logic, skepticism, and reason. Everyone on this forum, even Ahriman, has well more than a tincture of philosophy.

"We've always understood that this law is just?" -- but is it just? Let's have a conversation about what makes a law just. Let's look at logical arguments why this law is or is not just. THAT'S philosophy.

And if there were some hypothetical person without even a tincture of THAT, then that person would only be able to believe what common sense, his nation, or age tells him is true. To Russell, philosophy is a way that an individual can break free from the mold of society and common sense. If not to incite change for the better in society, at the very least to be able to explore those ideas privately, and not believe something just because "everybody else thinks it's true."

But philosophy isn't just about having unusual ideas. It's also about testing them for strength through logical argument. That's why Socrates philosophized in the marketplace, and felt the need to challenge people who laid claim to knowledge or truth.

I understand what he is saying, I also understand what he was and where he came from. I don't think he had much 'practical man' real life concerns and am quite certain he considered himself superior. Hence the "one who recognizes only material needs, who realizes that men must have food for the body, but is oblivious of the necessity of providing food for the mind."

His superiority statements strike me as vary similar to the religious.