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

[polymath257]

Ignoring that those things are themselves products of philosophy, you didn't have a single thought..at all, while you did that?  You made no inferences, you acted out on no value system, and..I guess, learned nothing whatsoever?

I disagree. Chemistry,physics, geology, etc, are NOT products of philosophy. They are their own independent subjects. Saying they are all part of philosophy is like saying they are all part of physics.

The point is that not all organized thinking counts as philosophy. And not all organized thinking arises from philosophy. Often, philosophers comment about that they *think* those in other subjects are doing, but the comments of philosophers usually have little to do with the actual subject.

I think you're setting yourself up in an impossible and wildly unrepresentative dilemma.  I think..especially here, in the context of this forum "philosophy" as a pejorative is used as a term for some specific view that is understandably shit on - but it's a ludicrous baby/bathwater situation that isn't at all representative of what you actually do, who you actually are, and where your interests lie.  At the bottom of it all, just as a human being, you're patently incapable of not "doing philosophy".  We think about things, and can't even help but do so.  There's no off button.

Not all thought is philosophy.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and I respect your disagreement, and that's us doing philosophy, right there.  


Coming up with a grocery list doesn't have to involve any philosophy, but it just as easily can and often does.  I might wonder what I should buy on account of environmental impact or socioeconomic consequences, for example.  I can think of alot of thought that isn't philosophy - I think you guys touched on that pretty early in thread, too.  That won't change the fact that a large amount of what people think about is doing philosophy, or the product of it having been done and calcified into a culture and/or law - which, itself, is a long running list of philosophical positions on a great many issues specific to a given region and time.

People are engaging in philosophy (whether they call it philosophy, or otherwise like philosophy) any time they attempt to answer or seek to understand fundamental truths about themselves, the world in which we live, and our relationships to that world and each other. It;s a big tent.

[brewer]

-and I respect your disagreement, and that's us doing philosophy, right there.  


Coming up with a grocery list doesn't have to involve any philosophy, but it just as easily can and often does.  I might wonder what I should buy on account of environmental impact or socioeconomic consequences, for example.  I can think of alot of thought that isn't philosophy - I think you guys touched on that pretty early in thread, too.  That won't change the fact that a large amount of what people think about is doing philosophy, or the product of it having been done and calcified into a culture and/or law - which, itself, is a long running list of philosophical positions on a great many issues specific to a given region and time.

Only because you define it as philosophy. A grocery list motivated by environmental impact or economics is philosophy belief to you, not necessarily to me. I think you believe almost everything is or can be philosophy, I (and maybe others) don't. But to continue insisting that your belief is the only correct one sounds a lot like the religious.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and thats you doing philosophy, right there - but poorly. A comparison to the religious wouldn't mean anything in and of itself, and only works as a dig because of a philosophy you hold to about religion, which is manifestly incorrect - but probably accurate with respect to the kinds of religions and kinds of philosophy you dislike. The example I offered before, Crosby, well, he's a pluralist as well as a pragmatist. In short, he thinks that there's more than a single right answer to any question.

I think we can fairly say that when a person does a thing that a term is defined as, it's not really a matter of my opinion whether or not they're doing the thing. I don't think that everything is philosophy, but I see that philosophy has a practical application in a great many instances. It can be used to help you make a chair, it can be used to help you make a grocery list. It's at the heart of every science, governments are entirely constructed out of it, and we do it instinctively without any training or academic pursuit whatsoever.

[brewer]

-and thats you doing philosophy, right there - but poorly.  A comparison to the religious wouldn't mean anything in and of itself, and only works as a dig because of a philosophy you hold to about religion, which is manifestly incorrect  - but probably accurate with respect to the kinds of religions and kinds of philosophy you dislike.  The example I offered before, Crosby, well, he's a pluralist as well as a pragmatist.  In short, he thinks that there's more than a single right answer to any question.

I think we can fairly say that when a person does a thing that a term is defined as, it's not really a matter of my opinion whether or not they're doing the thing.  I don't think that everything is philosophy, but I see that philosophy has a practical application in a great many instances.  It can be used to help you make a chair, it can be used to help you make a grocery list.  It's at the heart of every science, governments are entirely constructed out of it, and we do it instinctively without any training or academic pursuit whatsoever.

Thank you religious philosophy god interpreter. You level of belief is outstanding.

You don't mind if I take a pass, right? Hope that doesn't hurt your ego.

[The Grand Nudger]

You misunderstand. I'm not a religious naturalist, Crosby is - but even so, the kind of philosophy he does doesn't seem to fit the bad set, defined broadly by objections in this thread.

I'm also not super duper committed to pragmatism, to the ideal of and preference for utility - but Crosby is..and, additionally, it's clear that philosophy has a great many practical applications and that all of us have been made aware of or complicit in some philosophy, as well as doing it ourselves in whatever respect we may find useful.

I don't think that your summary (in post 21) is entirely off base. It's certainly true that philosophy can be tedious and can lack or lose whatever practical application it may have once had. I suspect that if people think philosophy is plato, or aristotle, or divine command theory, or any of the boring shit we were made to do bare minimum reports on in high school (and later) then it would hit home, and hit hard. We didn't stop doing philosophy, though, and contemporary philosophy is very very different from those classical examples.

Today, for example, we have people using scientific testing protocols to see whether they can quantify moral apprehensions across different populations, wondering whether any relationships or outcomes can be predicted...and, if so, how that data could help us to better understand ourselves or organize our societies. (turns out they can be, btw)

[brewer]

You misunderstand.  I'm not a religious naturalist, Crosby is - but even so, the kind of philosophy he does doesn't seem to fit the bad set, defined broadly by objections in this thread.  

I'm also not super duper committed to pragmatism, to the ideal of and preference for utility - but Crosby is..and, additionally, it's clear that philosophy has a great many practical applications and that all of us have been made aware of or complicit in some philosophy, as well as doing it ourselves in whatever respect we may find useful.  

I don't think that your summary (in post 21) is entirely off base.  It's certainly true that philosophy can be tedious and can lack or lose whatever practical application it may have once had.  I suspect that if people think philosophy is plato, or aristotle, or divine command theory, or any of the boring shit we were made to do bare minimum reports on in high school (and later) then it would hit home, and hit hard.  We didn't stop doing philosophy, though, and contemporary philosophy is very very different from those classical examples.

Today, for example, we have people using scientific testing protocols to see whether they can quantify moral apprehensions across different populations, wondering whether any relationships or outcomes can be predicted...and, if so, how that data could help us to better understand ourselves or organize our societies.  (turns out they can be, btw)

AFAIC I misunderstand nothing. Philosophy does not rise to the level of IRL impact that philosophers would like to believe.

I must be behaving and acting as god explanations dictate, I just don't know it, right?

bold: How the fuck is this not social science, psychology? Once again the philosopher defines everything philosophical. Good for you.

[The Grand Nudger]

Philosphers are, very often, involved in social sciences, yes. Even the theologian I used as an example premises his notion of what it means to be sacred on hard data and observable relationships which come from contemporary scientific investigation, rather than any a priori x, revelation, or need to reverse engineer a justification for a particular ideology.

Environmental action is informed by, and was created as a movement by, philosophy. I suspect that it's going to be impactful IRL, at least as impactful as it has been for theologians like Crosby and their ideas about divinity, and at least in part because of explications like Crosby's. We didn't just wake up one morning and say "let's save the planet and ourselves". We were persuaded, and not at all uniformly, so there's work still to be done.

[brewer]

Philosphers are, very often, involved in social sciences, yes.  Even the theologian I used as an example premises his notion of what it means to be sacred on hard data and observable relationships which come from contemporary scientific investigation, rather than any a priori x, revelation, or need to reverse engineer a justification for a particular ideology.  

Environmental action is informed by, and was created as a movement by, philosophy.  I suspect that it's going to be impactful IRL, at least as impactful as it has been for theologians like Crosby and their ideas about divinity, and at least in part because of explications like Crosby's.  We didn't just wake up one morning and say "let's save the planet and ourselves".  We were persuaded, and not at all uniformly, so there's work still to be done.

And if I took environmental action prior to any philosophical movement? Was the movement really based originally in philosophy or later defined as philosophy because that's what philosophers do?

Stop trying to make me believe your belief. Maybe you should start a church.

[The Grand Nudger]

That environmental action is desirable or worthwhile, at all, demonstrates a held value system. You make a good point, though, maybe you hadn't read any environmentalists manifestos - it just seemed to you to be the right thing to do. You (likely) considered your own apprehensions, your environment, and the relationship between you and others, and your environment, in that environment. You constructed a value system, and then acted on it. I'm not sure what's objectionable about noticing that this is philosophy, and the practical application of it.

Sure, you're not wondering how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or whether or not some god cammands you to environmental justice..but why would you? Not even the theologian I offered up does that. That's the Bad Kind™ of philosophy, but also a historical footnote to philosophy. That's not what they do anymore.

(I doubt I could find enough people who held the normative positions I hold to form a church, but it would be a hell of a racket if I could get into it, for sure. In the meantime, I leave church-building to those so inclined.)