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

[brewer]

It may be worth while to many, but I have little time for it and often find it tedious with few practical applications.

[Ahriman]

I've read Kant and Nietzsche.......I can't make heads or tails of that shit. It's like, they're not really saying anything. It's just fancy language for the sake of being fancy. When people claim to understand philosophy, I tend to think they're being facetious, because I don't see how anyone could get anything out of that stuff. However, everything I just said really only applies to intellectual philosophy, which I find overly convoluted. When it comes to spiritual philosophy, I've read and understood a lot of that stuff and enjoy pondering its greater meaning.

[The Grand Nudger]

Reminds me of reading shakespeare, and reading shakespeare in contemporary english. If you're studying shakespeare, you'll want to do the first thing - but if you want to intuitively grasp the stories, the latter. Spiritual philosophy is or can be equally convoluted - but it's better ingrained in our cultures and therefore easier to grasp.

Try to get into ritual magic systems and you might find the same "sake of being fancy" thing going on.

[vulcanlogician]

Here's a good quote that sums up my position that philosophy is worthwhile. It's a bit long, sorry, but it does a good job of stating why philosophy might be seen as essential. It's very much worth reading.

The 'practical' man, as this word is often used, is 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. If all men were well off, if poverty and disease had been reduced to their lowest possible point, there would still remain much to be done to produce a valuable society; and even in the existing world the goods of the mind are at least as important as the goods of the body. It is exclusively among the goods of the mind that the value of philosophy is to be found; and only those who are not indifferent to these goods can be persuaded that the study of philosophy is not a waste of time.
...
The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty. 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. To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected. As soon as we begin to philosophize, on the contrary, we find, as we saw in our opening chapters, that even the most everyday things lead to problems to which only very incomplete answers can be given. Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom. Thus, while diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never travelled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect.

http://www.paulgraham.com/valueofphilosophy.html

[brewer]

Here's a good quote that sums up my position that philosophy is worthwhile. It's a bit long, sorry, but it does a good job of stating why philosophy might be seen as essential. It's very much worth reading.

The 'practical' man, as this word is often used, is 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. If all men were well off, if poverty and disease had been reduced to their lowest possible point, there would still remain much to be done to produce a valuable society; and even in the existing world the goods of the mind are at least as important as the goods of the body. It is exclusively among the goods of the mind that the value of philosophy is to be found; and only those who are not indifferent to these goods can be persuaded that the study of philosophy is not a waste of time.
...
The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty. 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. To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected. As soon as we begin to philosophize, on the contrary, we find, as we saw in our opening chapters, that even the most everyday things lead to problems to which only very incomplete answers can be given. Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom. Thus, while diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never travelled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect.

http://www.paulgraham.com/valueofphilosophy.html

Wow, kind of philosophy self serving don't you think? Build philosophy up, tear down any non philosophy. I am not the 'non philosophy man' that he refers to.

[emjay]

I should have probably been a bit broader with my reply because before I was generally talking about personal/general/abstract philosophy... which was not a great fit for the OP's actual question of whether it's a worthwhile subject of study.

So as an actual academic subject of study, anyone who succeeds in it has my utmost respect... I tried an open learning course in it recently - granted a long time out of formal education and therefore no longer in that zone so to speak - and I failed miserably. It was just totally overwhelming... so many different perspectives to learn and all with different writing styles/ways of expressing themselves... I just couldn't process it all, couldn't find any reliable way to learn it all, nor any easy way to reduce what they were saying to simple arguments... well, in all cases, some philosophers were easier to parse than others but generally, it was just hard to find a consistent/reliable way to parse them all. So yeah, utmost respect for you guys who can seem to soak all this stuff up like a sponge, extracting the arguments in an instant, regardless of source.

Still perhaps misses the mark of the question... is it worthwhile to study if you can do it? I'd say definitely yes; if well structured and disciplined, philosophical thought/enquiry is essential for extending and evolving our knowledge in a whole range of subjects, some more practical and useful - like ethics - than others.

The 'others'... the more abstract uses of philosophy, such as the issues of self, mind, metaphysics, are more where I think the double-edged sword of it comes in... and why I'd still say 'both' rather than 'yes' - the potential to go down rabbit holes and get bogged down in minutiae, with no necessary guarantee that such boring down to different levels of detail - which ultimately I think is what philosophy is all about - will necessarily resolve the myriad paradoxes we often find ourselves in because of philosophy. As I said earlier, I think we have a somewhat innate optimism towards the value of philosophical thought, and that keeps driving us in those sorts of questions, ever trying to find the right question/right perspective/right level of detail, to make it make sense, to resolve paradoxes, but ultimately I think there's no guarantee that such is always possible with philosophy... due to the limitations of language etc, or what we can actually perceive or conceptualise.

[Belacqua]

I just couldn't process it all, couldn't find any reliable way to learn it all, nor any easy way to reduce what they were saying to simple arguments... well, in all cases, some philosophers were easier to parse than others but generally, it was just hard to find a consistent/reliable way to parse them all. So yeah, utmost respect for you guys who can seem to soak all this stuff up like a sponge, extracting the arguments in an instant, regardless of source.

Philosophy is fantastically difficult. Anybody who claims he soaks it up like a sponge is lying -- probably to himself. 

It's a lifelong task. Even to get conversant in one area (say, German philosophy Kant to Hegel, or Neoplatonism Plotinus to Proclus) is more like a lifestyle than a subject one masters. I'm constantly impressed with people who have done serious work on these things. Recently I learned about a scholar in Kyoto who works on how German Idealism was introduced into Japan and given a new and original spin. This guy knows so much, reads at least three languages fluently, knows the important resources, etc. etc. Here is a guy who has put in good work. 

That said, the only way to begin is to start discussing the issues. With the constant awareness that what we're saying is almost certainly shallow compared to what's out there, and would be thrown into doubt in a minute by someone who knew his stuff. 

but ultimately I think there's no guarantee that such is always possible with philosophy... due to the limitations of language etc, or what we can actually perceive or conceptualise.

This I think is one of the most important lessons of philosophy -- what the limits of our knowledge are. Aporia is one of the most important words in Plato.

---

it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect.

Really brilliant stuff by Russell. Thank you for finding it! 

It's funny because I would have said those things more about the arts than about philosophy. I had never really thought that, in this way, their goals coincide. 

The arts to me serve largely to make the familiar strange, the strange familiar, and to enliven what would otherwise seem dead. And this is one way of judging good from bad -- art which only reinforces our prejudices or massages our egos is not doing its job. Likewise philosophy which doesn't seem strange to us probably isn't worth much -- and Russell is right that a lot of people reject the strange pretty much straight away. People are so quick to scold or insult anything that it would take work to appreciate. Or they let it just bounce off their shells.

[emjay]

I just couldn't process it all, couldn't find any reliable way to learn it all, nor any easy way to reduce what they were saying to simple arguments... well, in all cases, some philosophers were easier to parse than others but generally, it was just hard to find a consistent/reliable way to parse them all. So yeah, utmost respect for you guys who can seem to soak all this stuff up like a sponge, extracting the arguments in an instant, regardless of source.

Philosophy is fantastically difficult. Anybody who claims he soaks it up like a sponge is lying -- probably to himself.
[...]

Nah, I've never seen anyone actually claim that, I just mean it seems apparent to me that some people are like that. GN for instance, to me, seems to have an almost superhuman ability to reduce any argument to its logical/?syllogistic form, quickly and effortlessly, whereas for me, depending on the author/writing style, that is easier or harder... with some philosophers naturally writing more in that kind of style, or similar structured styles, in the first place, vs more say verbose or poetic language etc. Like roughly speaking the difference between looking at Aristotle and Plato; Aristotle seems very structured in his writing style, clearly defining his terms etc, so that makes it easier to parse for me, whereas something like Plato, being more abstract/metaphorical/nuanced etc is harder to parse from that perspective.

Then there's also the issue, I don't know whether this is valid or not, that it seems philosophers aren't necessarily always even making an argument, that could be reduced to such a logical form, more just making observations and asking questions, which may eventually feed into an argument, but don't necessarily do so in their own right, thus making it even harder to discern what is relevant when trying to reduce a large body of text to a simple logical argument.

You're another example of someone I'd say has an incredible knowledge of philosophy. It just seems apparent from how you write, in the way that you seemingly effortlessly refer to other relevant ideas and philosophers, that you are highly immersed in the subject as a whole... or at least within the particular branches of it that interest you. And it's that immersion, as a lifelong task/lifestyle, even if only to get conversant in one area, like you say, that I think leads to that spongelike quality, but then again that's true of any subject; the more immersed you are, the more you become an expert and/or a connoisseur able to discern the most nuanced details, as well as actually quickly extract those details... like a sponge.

[vulcanlogician]

Wow, kind of philosophy self serving don't you think? Build philosophy up, tear down any non philosophy. I am not the 'non philosophy man' that he refers to.

It's worth noting that Russell is defending philosophy from those who think that it's worthless. In that context, it isn't building up philosophy and tearing down non-philosophy.

Think of it this way, if a group of people you know all think one of your friends is a worthless schmuck who is pretty much good for nothing, then it makes sense (if you disagree with them) to extoll your friend's virtues. You might even point out to this group qualities of excellence that your friend has that they don't have.

Without the context of a defense, it would seem really dickish for you to start saying to the group how awesome your friend is, or pointing what he has that they don't have. But within that context, it's fine. Russell is working within that context.

Russell is taking seriously the claim that philosophy is worthless. He disagrees with it, but he still takes it seriously. In that context, he is providing a proper defense of it-- he's not saying that anyone who doesn't like philosophy is a fool. His thesis is: "Philosophy is not worthless." not "philosophy is great." He may hint at it's greatness, but only to argue that it isn't worthless.

[brewer]

Wow, kind of philosophy self serving don't you think? Build philosophy up, tear down any non philosophy. I am not the 'non philosophy man' that he refers to.

It's worth noting that Russell is defending philosophy from those who think that it's worthless. In that context, it isn't building up philosophy and tearing down non-philosophy.

Think of it this way, if a group of people you know all think one of your friends is a worthless schmuck who is pretty much good for nothing, then it makes sense (if you disagree with them) to extoll your friend's virtues. You might even point out to this group qualities of excellence that your friend has that they don't have.

Without the context of a defense, it would seem really dickish for you to start saying to the group how awesome your friend is, or pointing what he has that they don't have. But within that context, it's fine. Russell is working within that context.

Russell is taking seriously the claim that philosophy is worthless. He disagrees with it, but he still takes it seriously. In that context, he is providing a proper defense of it-- he's not saying that anyone who doesn't like philosophy is a fool. His thesis is: "Philosophy is not worthless." not "philosophy is great." He may hint at it's greatness, but only to argue that it isn't worthless.

"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.