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

[Belacqua]

That depends on how you define "knowledge." 

It's wonderful as a source for certain kinds of knowledge.

Mostly the self-knowledge that we don't have many answers.
From what I have seen, philosophy is very good at asking interesting questions that make us pause. That is a good thing.
But it is very bad at actually answering those questions.
And it is worst when it clings to old answers and claims they are the only possible answers.

You've shifted the topic now, from "knowledge" to "answers." These are not necessarily the same.

I can understand that in your value system and ideology, "knowledge" would equal an answer you find satisfactorily persuasive. But that isn't necessarily what philosophy is attempting to provide. 

Philosophy doesn't run by the same rules as your preferred subjects.

[emjay]

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.

This is certainly fair. There are different kinds of philosophical texts, with different ambitions. 

This seems to be the case right from the start. Plato's conversations bring up various ideas and possible answers which are discussed and then put aside. His characters tell myths to illustrate what an answer would be like, without actually giving an answer. 

This frustrates people who expect every text to be like a science book, with the answers written out in simple declarative sentences and little blocks of text inset in the page to define the hard words. But, as with all good books, Plato demands that we use our brains to their very limit, and his texts' value lies largely in that they have provoked inconclusive conversation for a very long time.

I'm not saying I don't appreciate that... indeed it was very inspiring to see the passion of the YouTube teacher I was watching in that philosophy playlist, when he talked about his ongoing joy reading Plato... like layers of an onion, such that every single time he read through it, he'd learn something new or see something from a new perspective... basically that it just kept giving... and I experienced that to some extent for myself reading it. So I'm not saying I wish Plato was in a different, simpler form, or that all philosophy was in that simpler form... that's not what I'm saying at all... indeed it would be very boring if it were all the same, especially since philosophical texts are or can be deeply personal/idiosyncratic views into the way people perceive and think about the world, and different writing styles are part of that. I'm just saying that due to my own limitations, I have more difficulty parsing some writing styles than others, when it comes to actually trying to extract arguments, including difficulty zeroing in on the right level of detail (ie determining what's relevant to the argument and/or the context), but that doesn't mean I want the source material to change, just at most my own ability to parse it.

Aristotle, arguably, is more in line with what modern people want. He doesn't use myth or allegory, he tries to build up declarative statements into logical arguments to arrive at clear conclusions. So he's a model for some later types, and you can categorize people into Plato types and Aristotle types. Both can be fantastically difficult. And this is not made any easier by the fact that some people (Nietzsche and Adorno, among others) think that writing their ideas in simple, third-grade level sentences, would actually contradict their ideas, and argue tacitly against them. Oversimplifying is falsifying. If the "medium is the message," then a difficult medium is an important part of the meaning.

Modern people tend to forget that there are other ways of constructing a text besides the way that a science book or a good newspaper article is written.

That's an interesting point I've never heard before. But again I'd say the same as above; it's not that I would wish the source material itself to change, just at most my own reading comprehension/parsing abilties. So I can fully accept that 'the medium [can be] the message' or that 'oversimplifying [can be] falsifying', whether that be the dialogues of Plato, or Shakespeare like GN mentioned earlier; something would basically get lost in the translation from original form to simplified/modern (or extracted) form, it would be like lossy compression in computing terms ;-)... or similar to poetry, where the words used are meant to evoke multiple meanings etc, and in their case, probably any change at all would destroy their original meaning.

[polymath257]

Mostly the self-knowledge that we don't have many answers.
From what I have seen, philosophy is very good at asking interesting questions that make us pause. That is a good thing.
But it is very bad at actually answering those questions.
And it is worst when it clings to old answers and claims they are the only possible answers.

You've shifted the topic now, from "knowledge" to "answers." These are not necessarily the same.

I can understand that in your value system and ideology, "knowledge" would equal an answer you find satisfactorily persuasive. But that isn't necessarily what philosophy is attempting to provide. 

Philosophy doesn't run by the same rules as your preferred subjects.

To a good first approximation, knowledge is justified true belief. Beliefs are statements.

You said philosophy is a source for certain kinds of knowledge. Can you give an example?

[The Grand Nudger]

That's an interesting point I've never heard before. But again I'd say the same as above; it's not that I would wish the source material itself to change, just at most my own reading comprehension/parsing abilties. So I can fully accept that 'the medium [can be] the message' or that 'oversimplifying [can be] falsifying', whether that be the dialogues of Plato, or Shakespeare like GN mentioned earlier; something would basically get lost in the translation from original form to simplified/modern (or extracted) form, it would be like lossy compression in computing terms ;-)... or similar to poetry, where the words used are meant to evoke multiple meanings etc, and in their case, probably any change at all would destroy their original meaning.

Things get lost when the language no longer fits it's contemporary use, as well.  It doesn't even take that long.  The "non natural" part of non natural realism is a sticking point for alot of people, for example.  A dry reading, without a translator, gives you the opposite impression of what was intended.

Words change, meaning changes, use changes. Like any other message in a foreign language, reading The Original probably won't help all that much with comprehension. It's more for historic interest than accurate communication of a statement. Carthago delenda est means nothing if you don't speak the language. It's an empty phrase in literal translation. It's the distillation of a consequential political ideology - in plain talk.

[Duty]

I voted no. In a world of materialistic pragmatism, philosophy is mere entertainment. Then again, I guess I'll have to conclude that music too is not worth...studying? Hobby? Fine. Profession? No.

[Neo-Scholastic]

That's an interesting point I've never heard before. But again I'd say the same as above; it's not that I would wish the source material itself to change, just at most my own reading comprehension/parsing abilties. So I can fully accept that 'the medium [can be] the message' or that 'oversimplifying [can be] falsifying', whether that be the dialogues of Plato, or Shakespeare like GN mentioned earlier; something would basically get lost in the translation from original form to simplified/modern (or extracted) form, it would be like lossy compression in computing terms ;-)... or similar to poetry, where the words used are meant to evoke multiple meanings etc, and in their case, probably any change at all would destroy their original meaning.

Things get lost when the language no longer fits it's contemporary use, as well.  It doesn't even take that long.  The "non natural" part of non natural realism is a sticking point for alot of people, for example.  A dry reading, without a translator, gives you the opposite impression of what was intended.

Words change, meaning changes, use changes. Like any other message in a foreign language, reading The Original probably won't help all that much with comprehension. It's more for historic interest than accurate communication of a statement. Carthago delenda est means nothing if you don't speak the language. It's an empty phrase in literal translation. It's the distillation of a consequential political ideology - in plain talk.

Hannibal had it coming.

[Belacqua]

That's an interesting point I've never heard before. But again I'd say the same as above; it's not that I would wish the source material itself to change, just at most my own reading comprehension/parsing abilties. So I can fully accept that 'the medium [can be] the message' or that 'oversimplifying [can be] falsifying', whether that be the dialogues of Plato, or Shakespeare like GN mentioned earlier; something would basically get lost in the translation from original form to simplified/modern (or extracted) form, it would be like lossy compression in computing terms ;-)... or similar to poetry, where the words used are meant to evoke multiple meanings etc, and in their case, probably any change at all would destroy their original meaning.

You bring up a good point here, in emphasizing the language. I'd say that's a large part of doing philosophy -- just getting clear on what the words mean.

For example in translations of Aristotle, they might give you eudaemonia, kalon, and arete in some modern English more-or-less equivalent. But a key thing we learn from him is that our modern view of happiness is just very different from eudaemonia, and using the former word as equivalent to the latter is going to be way misleading. Learning why that is is half the battle in learning what Aristotle has to say. Relying on a translation that hasn't bothered with lengthy explanations of the vocabulary is a waste of time. 

This goes back to what Russell was saying: we think we have an idea of happiness, goodness, etc. But when we read Aristotle we discover that very different concepts and systems are possible. Our eyes are opened to different possible worlds. (Science fiction claims to do this, but almost always the characters in distant galaxies have all the values and concepts of modern Americans, and don't even know that alternatives are possible.)

Just about every philosopher, even modern ones, have to use certain terms in specialized ways. But that's no problem -- it's half the fun. And it's not a problem unique to philosophy, since just about every field needs its special terms.

[emjay]

That's an interesting point I've never heard before. But again I'd say the same as above; it's not that I would wish the source material itself to change, just at most my own reading comprehension/parsing abilties. So I can fully accept that 'the medium [can be] the message' or that 'oversimplifying [can be] falsifying', whether that be the dialogues of Plato, or Shakespeare like GN mentioned earlier; something would basically get lost in the translation from original form to simplified/modern (or extracted) form, it would be like lossy compression in computing terms ;-)... or similar to poetry, where the words used are meant to evoke multiple meanings etc, and in their case, probably any change at all would destroy their original meaning.

You bring up a good point here, in emphasizing the language. I'd say that's a large part of doing philosophy -- just getting clear on what the words mean.

For example in translations of Aristotle, they might give you eudaemonia, kalon, and arete in some modern English more-or-less equivalent. But a key thing we learn from him is that our modern view of happiness is just very different from eudaemonia, and using the former word as equivalent to the latter is going to be way misleading. Learning why that is is half the battle in learning what Aristotle has to say. Relying on a translation that hasn't bothered with lengthy explanations of the vocabulary is a waste of time. 

This goes back to what Russell was saying: we think we have an idea of happiness, goodness, etc. But when we read Aristotle we discover that very different concepts and systems are possible. Our eyes are opened to different possible worlds. (Science fiction claims to do this, but almost always the characters in distant galaxies have all the values and concepts of modern Americans, and don't even know that alternatives are possible.)

Just about every philosopher, even modern ones, have to use certain terms in specialized ways. But that's no problem -- it's half the fun. And it's not a problem unique to philosophy, since just about every field needs its special terms.

Yeah, I can understand that. Ie as much as I appreciate Aristotle's style... its structure and I think his intention to be as clear as possible, dedicating whole chapters/sections to defining his terms etc... as much as I appreciate all of that, when I was reading it, it was clear that a lot of his terms had different meanings, though the same words, as our modern equivalents/translations/assumptions. I can't give any examples right now, because I haven't read or thought about Aristotle for a while so have forgotten a lot of it, but I do know that when I was reading it, that caught me out a number of times (not the sort of things you're talking about above, but more general things, even just things like what he means by the words 'nature' or 'physics'), and it's ultimately that that I think is the main cause of our misunderstandings when we're trying to debate Aquinas etc. Ie its deceptively similar to modern thinking/assumptions on first impressions, but those sometimes slight, sometimes major, differences in meaning, obviously make a big difference in truly understanding what is being said. Add to that, what is not being said - in the sense of whatever implicit and unstated assumptions/biases he has from his time and place and whatever came before that he builds upon/is influenced by, and there is even more potential for misunderstanding/not understanding.

But basically the trade-off for all of this is that you can't get this true and deep understanding of this - Aristotle - or anything else without a lot of immersion in the subject, and I've already learnt that reading Aristotle is a massive undertaking, because there's so much of it, as well as being stifled by my own limitations like I talked about before, like for instance I couldn't make head nor tail of all the stuff on predicates and 'predicated of', and for all I know, that may just come down to understanding language structure... ie I think I have a pretty good command of the English language, albeit sometimes being a bit/lot too verbose , but that's never come from a technical understanding of the structure of our language, just practical practice. So yes, I accept that full and deep understanding can't come without a lot of immersion in the subject, but at the same time, sometimes you just want, or need, the Cliff Notes version Ie basically a passable summary, or notes, but like with extracting logical arguments, that's another thing I have difficulty doing, and for the same reasons as for that, but at least there's usually a wiki and that's often a good starting point.

[The Valkyrie]

No.

Seriously.

[vulcanlogician]

Do you not think "food for the mind" is important? I think it is. Even for every day folks with a plateful of practical concerns. Maybe even ESPECIALLY for those folks. Maybe "food for the mind" is just another kind of nourishment that the elites horde for themselves when it ought to be available to everybody.

I dig what you are saying Brewer. I don't like intellectual elitism much at all. I agree that privileged rich men ought not be the only ones exploring these questions. But that has little to do with the value of the questions themselves.

Yes, I think food for the mind is important, but that food is found in many ways that do not need to be based in philosophy. Can a mechanic improve his skills with learning more and better techniques? Can someone learning to sew expand their mind and creativity? Or the first farmers testing how to improve production? Questions and resultant answers or acquisition of skills (mind food) do not need to be derived only from philosophy.

Yes. Those things qualify as "food for the mind." 

So does art, literature, poetry, and (sometimes) network TV. I've been watching Star Trek Discovery. How practical is a science fiction show about aliens and space fantasy exploration?

Let's say we remove a couple "impractical" things from humanity's buffet of food for the mind. Let's take away art and poetry. Is humankind better off? I'd say no. I would say they are worse off. Art and poetry enhance humankind by bestowing catharsis and sometimes creative power to those who appreciate them. It's hard to quantify what practical use art or poetry has, but it could be argued that such things are --indirectly-- of practical use. I would argue that philosophy is one of those things (like art and poetry) that enhance the human experience. Is philosophy all-important? No. But take it away from humankind, and we will have lost something immensely valuable.

***

I could also argue that philosophy IS of great practical import. In America we have inalienable human rights. The concept of inalienable human rights didn't come out of thin air. Nor did it come from someone trying to found a great nation which protected its citizens liberty via the concept. 

It came from a thinker who asked the question: What is justice? 

Inalienable human rights played a crucial role in his answer to that question. He then formulated a set of logical arguments bolstering his position. An intelligent person (Thomas Jefferson) found those arguments convincing and applied those principles to his work in nation building.

The reason Jefferson was convinced is because John Locke made a convincing case that relied on few assumptions. That's what philosophers do. And that can be of immense practical value sometimes.