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

[Disagreeable]

Generally speaking, is philosophy a worthwhile subject of study?

Please no derails or insults! I decided to make this a serious thread because I am very interested in the forum at large's thoughts on this matter,

L

[John 6IX Breezy]

Yes; I think philosophy is essential to science—inseparable really. Most of my favorite papers were written by scientists that were in some way students of philosophers.

It might be that psychology has a closer relationship to philosophy than other branches, but I even have a few books from the philosophy of biology, and the philosophy of science more broadly, and they're great at highlighting problems you didn't even realize existed.

[Disagreeable]

IMV, philosophy is king. Of all serious theoretical subjects. 'tis the granddaddy.

[emjay]

I'd go with both. On the one hand I can't imagine humanity without Philosophy and on a personal level, it has a kind of unique, ever-hopeful potential - the (perhaps illusory) notion that any problem can be solved with enough thought. But on the other hand it's definitely possible to overthink things and get bogged down in minutiae, ending up clouding issues seemingly beyond repair.

[Disagreeable]

I'd go with both. On the one hand I can't imagine humanity without Philosophy and on a personal level, it has a kind of unique, ever-hopeful potential - the (perhaps illusory) notion that any problem can solved with enough thought. But on the other hand it's definitely possible to overthink things and get bogged down in minutiae, ending up clouding issues seemingly beyond repair.

Good answer. I thought about putting 'both' myself for the same reasons. You bounced out one of my own thought processes when I went for a work earlier today while this thread was being summoned up from the depths of my subconsciousness.

I ended up opting for 'Yes', however, because I think that even when one overthinks things and gets bogged down in minutiae, seeming to end up clouding issues seemingly beyond repair, one still has the potential to ultimately, in the long run, grow more than wither, as a flower of philosophy, even in the very worst cases of overanalysis because such overanalysis need not be permanent and may eventually have a very big payoff.. If one believes in one's mind sufficiently.

Philosophy, plus a little bit of faith (so long as the faith is faith in evidence and not aside from evidence) can get you anywhere, IME.

[Angrboda]

It depends.

If you have some goal in mind that might benefit, of course. Studying logic is useful for many things, and understanding some of the philosophical issues regarding science may be useful to a science major.

However if you're just studying it for personal enrichment, I'd say it's no more nor less worthwhile than anything else. It doesn't lend itself to a lot of direct application, so it's not a necessary complement to a liberal arts education.

Of course it depends on what you mean by philosophy. Logic and critical thinking, both useful, aren't ordinarily included under that rubric.

[emjay]

I'd go with both. On the one hand I can't imagine humanity without Philosophy and on a personal level, it has a kind of unique, ever-hopeful potential - the (perhaps illusory) notion that any problem can solved with enough thought. But on the other hand it's definitely possible to overthink things and get bogged down in minutiae, ending up clouding issues seemingly beyond repair.

Good answer. I thought about putting 'both' myself for the same reasons. You bounced out one of my own thought processes when I went for a work earlier today while this thread was being summoned up from the depths of my subconsciousness.

I ended up opting for 'Yes', however, because I think that even when one overthinks things and gets bogged down in minutiae, seeming to end up clouding issues seemingly beyond repair, one still has the potential to ultimately, in the long run, grow more than wither, as a flower of philosophy, even in the very worst cases of overanalysis because such overanalysis need not be permanent and may eventually have a very big payoff.. If one believes in one's mind sufficiently.

Philosophy, plus a little bit of faith (so long as the faith is faith in evidence and not aside from evidence) can get you anywhere, IME.

Ultimately I think it's just the human condition really... as much as I/anyone may overthink things, doesn't stop us from doing it... it's just human nature I think to be always questioning, but some of us are better at it than others. I'm personally not great at it... I bore down to the wrong levels of detail or have difficulty understanding context etc, but some people are much better suited to it by their temperament or overall style of thinking.

Thanks for the change of rep BTW... tbh the other one read a bit like a eulogy and I didn't know what to make of it (again down to that difficulty with context I think). I'll change mine for you accordingly

[Angrboda]

One of the things about philosophy is that it's very easy to over-estimate one's competence in it. It takes a lot of reading to really get a grip on what's been thought before regarding specific areas of philosophy, so it's really not an easy thing to get good at. But I suppose the same is true of other subjects like history or art.

[GrandizerII]

For sure, philosophy is a worthwhile subject of study if you like to ponder deeply about such things as ontology, ethics, epistemology, theology/philosophy of religion, aesthetics, philosophy of science, and so on. It's not for everyone, though, just as the subject of mathematics is not for everyone. And also, not every topic in philosophy is going to be interesting enough for the intellectual thinker. To one person for example, metaphysics and philosophy of religion are interesting subjects to think about but ethics is not.

[Disagreeable]

However if you're just studying it for personal enrichment, I'd say it's no more nor less worthwhile than anything else.  It doesn't lend itself to a lot of direct application, so it's not a necessary complement to a liberal arts education.

Do you have an opinion on philosophy as a mystical, spiritual or religious practice? (from either a theistic or atheistic view point (because atheists can be any of those 3 things, of course, although they rarely are, perhaps).

Of course it depends on what you mean by philosophy.

The aim to understand how things fit together impersonally, and practice the fitting of things together personally, on a metaphysical level, on an epistemological level and on a phenomenological level. That is, IME and IMV, what philosophy is.

Logic and critical thinking, both useful, aren't ordinarily included under that rubric.

But they ought to be, IMO.

---

Thanks for the change of rep BTW... tbh the other one read a bit like a eulogy and I didn't know what to make of it (again down to that difficulty with context I think). I'll change mine for you accordingly

My pleasure. Sometimes impersonal friendship is greater than personal friendship. It all depends. Perhaps one can sometimes have a bit of both. There are plusses and minuses for both.

Context is extremely difficult for me too, at least a lot of the time, but even without getting the context right I think that I can still achieve a harmonic balance of both formality and informality with practice.

Basically, unless I am having fun in a purely humorous or otherwise fun way that is both harmless and mutually enjoyable for all involved: I ought to default to formality. I reckon.

I think that I ought to be formal more often than most. To counteract my lack of common sense.

L