How worthless is Philosophy?

[Belacqua]

If fellow citizens don't have the logical and ethical skills to make the right decision when voting, by the time they're old enough to do so, that can have an adverse impact on both me and the rest of society.

Here I think you are, very correctly, showing that philosophy does have real-world applications. Logic and ethics are essential for good decision making. 

Earlier I mentioned Plato's Phaedrus, so I've been thinking about a part of that book that's maybe relevant here. 

Near the end of the book, Socrates says that he's opposed to the idea of writing philosophy. Written philosophy, he says, is dead (like a painted portrait) and can't defend itself or further explain itself. If someone reads it and gets the completely wrong idea, nobody's around to protest. 

The idea here is that philosophy is never a set of rules or axioms that can simply be committed to memory. It's not like, say, first-year Physics where you spend your time learning what the current best theories consist of. 

Philosophy, for him, is love of wisdom (which is what the word philosophy means, anyway). And wisdom is not something that one learns from lectures or readings. Such things can set you up, but don't go far enough. What's really required is dialogue, in which we say what we think already, and analyze it in the company of friends. A large part of this process consists in unlearning, since by the time we're old enough to discuss anything much we're already full up with opinions and beliefs. This is why Socrates challenges people to define certain important terms, and then shows them how their definitions turn out to be lacking. They unlearn what they thought they knew. 

So this is not much like a lecture class or silent reading of a text. It's far more like Freudian analysis, in which the analysand speaks his thoughts freely. The action of articulating what was only half-formed in the mind before, and holding it up to the light, as it were, is a crucial part of the process. Like the old joke, "How do I know what I think until I hear what I say?" I had a Neo-Freudian as an analyst, and the most powerful, affecting thing he ever said to me was in response to a claim I'd made. He said "really?" 

The second step in the process is probably much more difficult to achieve. This is in the response that one's friends make to what you say. How do they construct their response? Socrates' famous method is just to keep asking questions until the first speaker understands the flaws in what he has said. At times, depending on whom he's speaking to, he will engage in gentle teasing. There's a place in the Symposium where he follows one speaker by saying, in effect, "Gee, your speech was so good! But I see now that I've misunderstood the assignment, because I thought we were supposed to say true things!" So a bit of ribbing. 

I've seen people claim that they use the Socratic method, but on further examination it turns out that they never do.

I think that some of this could be taught. Maybe the crucial steps to be learned would go this way:

1) careful listening. It's very frustrating when you say something and your interlocutor responds as if you've said something completely different.

2) further questioning. Patient drawing out of a half-formed idea can help everybody to see the implications of what's been said. 

3) various forms of push-back. The first two steps are mostly just good manners. This step, I think, gets into the field of psychology. Wrong kinds of feedback will work against any kind of mutual progress in understanding. Harsh mockery, hurtful comments, anything designed to shut down dialogue instead of encouraging it. This is not a contest with a winner. Everybody wins if everybody's thinking is enriched. 

So classroom lessons in Platonic philosophy, I guess, would mostly be practicing certain behaviors. Love of wisdom [philosophy] is not a set of truths but a lifelong habit of forming one's thoughts and then holding them up to the light.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Sure, though it needs to be mentioned that the difference between eastern and western axial philosophies in this regard leans more toward your own point of view.  From a naturalistic and practical pov those are all the things you should do - as opposed to trying to solve those problems by appealing to gods or immaterial ideals, for example.  Only an unvirtuous ruler would insist that his people "be better" in order to be less sick.

You can see how this ruler would fail the test, even if they believed that "being better" was a way to be less sick, of recognizing the flow™ of said people.  An analog sentiment in western philosophy would be "faith without works".  It can never be stressed enough that while western philosophy is characterized by the attempt to satisfy some ideal, eastern philosophy is much more concerned with promoting social order.  In western philosophy, doing something you abhor just because it promotes social order is, broadly, a bad compromise - but justifiable or exemptible.  In eastern philosophy, it's a good one - laudable and exemplary.

And yet no one - in the east or the west - has ever said, 'Hon, the toilet's backing up! Quick, call a philosopher!'

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

OFC not, but we also dont call welders when our toilets back up. Whenever our government is backed up that's exactly what we do. The practical use of philosophy has traditionally been empire or consensus building.

[Ahriman]

OFC not, but we also dont call welders when our toilets back up.  Whenever our government is backed up that's exactly what we do.  The practical use of philosophy has traditionally been empire or consensus building.

If some dark power hungry individual (or set of individuals) wanted to take over the world, I don't see anything wrong with that. They would hold some kind of philosophy, of course, and would be willing to stick to their guns. And that puts them in an advantageous position to judge others. What do other people have? Nothing but ill-informed opinions.

[The Grand Nudger]

You provide a wonderful example of how and when philosophy fails.

[Ahriman]

You provide a wonderful example of how and when philosophy fails.

Providing a means of establishing a world order that is, by any decent standard, better than whatever had come before it, is not a failure. It is a resounding success.

[Anomalocaris]

Should this discipline be required in college? Should students who are pursuing unrelated degrees be required to take any philosophy classes at all at university? Why or why not?

What about History? Should business majors be required to take History 101? Why or why not?

Personally, I think philosophy is largely useless unless one thinks that politics, law, or morality is useful. So, therefore, I tend to think that most philosophy courses are useless to those who pursue business degrees and such. Even scientists, though they may be interested in philosophy, and not too shabby at philosophizing either... philosophy doesn't help science much at all. Even philosophy of science doesn't help science. Let alone the rest of it.

But I do think philosophy is immensely useful to those who pursue political science or law. Maybe even science to some degree. But, meh. Only so useful to scientists...

I think two philosophy courses ought to be required of all students: ethics 101 and logic 101. Beyond that, philosophy is useless to the vast majority of professions.

Most of what business schools teach about business is useless to those who pursue business degrees.      the catch is while the majority of what is taught would be useless to each person who pursue business degree,  what exactly is useful and what is useless is not the same for everyone. 

The same applies to what is taught not just in general, but in the specific subject, to those pursuing degrees in most if not all specific subject.

[vulcanlogician]

If we're looking at things like laozi or republic we're looking at what were most likely composite works aimed at a mid level bureaucrat or the ruler of a small state.  We've since mythologized the characters and the times and that gives us a poor intuitive impression of the nature and use of the ideas contained therein.  The people who would have been familiar with these works closer to their origins would have been semi literate and semi noble.  There would be no systemic education programs in place and the breadth and depth of their knowledge from what amounted to private instruction would have been comparable to contemporary grade schoolers at best.  Short version of a long story is that it's entirely likely that both works were trade school material.  

I never said Plato got everything right. He was wrong as fuck... a lot! And I'm pretty sure I've pointed that out numerous times

But he was a hell of a lot better than folks who just assumed Poseidon provided them with bad trade winds because they said their incantations improperly at the outset of their village. You gotta give props to Plato (as wrong as he was) for proposing we be reasonable about these things and ask questions about what was really going on in cases likes these. You don't don't need an omniscient person to advance us beyond ignorance. A simple rational person with a good argument can get the job done too.

If I've ever overstated Plato's awesomeness, it's probably because he can write so well and many good points. He shouldn't be mythologized or exaggerated. But he deserves some credit. He clarified more things than he obscured.

[The Grand Nudger]

A miscommunication. Their rightness and wrongness isn't the reason that I mentioned our mythologizing or their semi-literate status. It's to reground these philosophies in what it appeared to be about, what it appeared to be for, and who would have been familiar with any of it, in their own time.

For example, plato didn't propose that we be reasonable about god stories - quite the opposite. He affirmed those superstitions, especially insomuch as they supported whatever he was saying about good governance and moral virtue - identical to him (at least one of the contributors to laozi took this same approach). He had a contemporary who did speak critically about the myths and who the historical interpretation of mythology is named after but even that guy, euhemerus, wasn't speaking innovatively on the subject. There was an older trend of the same. The greeks had, by that time, already been approaching their god myths with scrutiny for centuries. It was later christians who insisted otherwise, largely as an effort to denigrate the culture and it's beliefs.

Ultimately, he became PLATO because some other then nameless functionary he taught went on to teach a then-unremarkable boy who one day conquered much of their known world. Axial philosophy, in both eastern and western traditions..it seems... was the business of bureaucracy. The politics of power. That we made it something more or other than that, the academic hobby of the wealthy intelligentsia, is what I was referring to about mythologizing the times. Comparing it to trade material is to remind us that what axial philosophers were doing wasn't much different than running a night school for dropouts who want jobs at the licensing bureau. The formal or more formative education of the intellegentsia and elites of that time would have been in warfare. It should come as no surprise, then, that both eastern and western axial philosophy can be summarized as the guiding principles of warrior kings and the people they would rely on, and that this would feature heavily in the respective and then-looming empires of each tradition.

Perhaps, if we brought this stuff out of the ivory tower we've constructed for it as a consequence of history, it would have greater overt purchase in our current society. Look at the success that zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance had. I've never read it. I have no thoughts on the rightness or wrongness of the things discussed - but it's the number one selling book on philosophy, of all time, in the us.

[vulcanlogician]

For example, plato didn't propose that we be reasonable about god stories - quite the opposite.  He affirmed those superstitions, especially insomuch as they supported whatever he was saying about good governance and moral virtue - identical to him (at least one of the contributors to laozi took this same approach).

There is some truth to this and some untruth to this. Plato did endorse continuing to espouse moralities of his day. But he also said they should undergo copious revisions in sure to make certain they told the best message. ie. Plato thought the gods and heroes should be portrayed and virtuous and principled. Not weak and prone to human emotions. That was an aspect where he resisted the established religious views in ancient Greece.

Ultimately, he became PLATO because some other then nameless functionary he taught went on to teach a then-unremarkable boy who one day conquered much of their known world.

 

He did those things after he wrote the Republic and the Symposium. So what if his successor became some kind of tutor for kids? Plato's work stands on its own, as beautiful writing and important ideas in their own right. His philosophy was not as good in his late period. And he DID get involved in politics again in his mature years. I don't really care about that. His best philosophy was from his early and middle works. Whether speaking of literature or his ability to change politics, Plato failed in his later efforts.

I think we agree on that.

Axial philosophy, in both eastern and western traditions..it seems... was the business of bureaucracy.  The politics of power.

IDK if axial philosophy is all that useful there. If anything, Plato was trying to escape the power of bureaucracies and independently figure out some truth that bureaucracies that bureaucracies (or indeed any institution with power) should be beholden too.

That we made it something more or other than that, the academic hobby of the wealthy intelligentsia, is what I was referring to about mythologizing the times.  

I take that as a personal attack, even though I've done my best to justify myself above, but go ahead.

 Comparing it to trade material is to remind us that what axial philosophers were doing wasn't much different than running a night school for dropouts who want jobs at the licensing bureau.  The formal or more formative education of the intellegentsia and elites of that time would have been in warfare.  It should come as no surprise, then, that both eastern and western axial philosophy can be summarized as the guiding principles of warrior kings and the people they would rely on, and that this would feature heavily in the respective and then-looming empires of each tradition.

I think a big thing you are getting at is that philosophy is some kind of "elitist" pursuit of knowledge these days. It's a good criticism. The shoe fits. But I've always thought that philosophy is an open thing in the marketplace. And even an uneducated fool can sometimes ask better questions than the intelligencia. In fact, if the intellectual riff-raff and their claims aren't eamined, I'd hardly call it philosophy.

Perhaps, if we brought this stuff out of the ivory tower we've constructed for it as a consequence of history, it would have greater overt purchase in our current society.  Look at the success that zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance had.  I've never read it.  I have no thoughts on the rightness or wrongness of the things discussed - but it's the number one selling book on philosophy, of all time, in the us.

You're gonna have some philosophy in the ivory tower. It simply belongs there. But that doesn't mean that most philosophy belongs on the streets. It more so belongs to the neanderthals than the academics.