How worthless is Philosophy?

[Belacqua]

Philosophy of yore is now of the zeitgeist, who needs to be taught?
If insufficient students choose navel studies, philosophers should get a real job.

Certainly the zeitgeist supplies us with apparent answers to many philosophical questions. 

It may be comfortable to accept the zeitgeist as given; maybe life is just easier if we go with the flow. But if a person wanted to question this, and think about whether our current ways of thinking could be better, then learning some philosophy would give a person the tools to do that. 

So for example our current zeitgeist is soaked through with liberal bourgeois values, whether we like it or not. Recognizing what exactly these are, and whether or not we should get away from them, requires philosophical thought.

[Ahriman]

I would say it's philosophy if it's meant (by the observer) to explore a deeper level of reality. If it's not meant to do that, I wouldn't call it philosophy. For me, it is not philosophy to ask myself, "Should I do those dishes right now?"

Oh, well, that's fair. "Coke or Pepsi?" is hardly a philosophical question. 

Traditionally, I think philosophy breaks down into big issues of metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, and other questions that can't be settled through science. 

To ponder usefulness, as in the OP, we'd have to do philosophy and define what "useful" means, what kind of usefulness is good, whether non-useful questions are worthy of our attention, etc. We live in a very utilitarian kind of culture, so "useful" appears to be an intrinsic good, though this is a question that only philosophy can address.

Appears, yeah. But not necessarily. If most (or all) of the members of a society are "making themselves useful", but the society is stagnating or getting worse, then it isn't really good that all those people are making themselves useful.

[FrustratedFool]

A: Is it useful to make a good engineer?
B: Useful for whom?
A: Wouldn't the obvious answer be both individual and society?
B: Is it more useful to society to have an intelligent young person train to be an engineer or a doctor?
A: Is it more useful for an individual to be a happy engineer or an unhappy doctor?
B: It seems more ethical to be an unhappy doctor than a happy engineer, wouldn't you agree?
A: Being moral isn't the same as being useful, is it?
B: Then what did you mean by useful to society?

And at this point they did what all good forum philosophers do, and that's try to punch each other across the internet using their metaphysical powers.

[Belacqua]

Appears, yeah. But not necessarily. If most (or all) of the members of a society are "making themselves useful", but the society is stagnating or getting worse, then it isn't really good that all those people are making themselves useful.

Yes, that seems to me exactly the kind of question that should be addressed. 

When we call something useful, we need to ask "useful for what?" There is always an implied aim. 

In discussing college classes, "useful" generally means that it's directly applicable to a money-making career. More and more, college is seen as exclusively aimed at career prep of this type. But it's a philosophical question as to whether people should learn other things too.

And since a thing that is useful always points to a goal that is beyond itself, then it makes sense to ask what the end point of that aiming is. What you say is exactly right here: if everyone is "making themselves useful," but people are getting more and more miserable, then we need to reconsider our goals.

[Angrboda]

Too many people wind up at middle age without knowing how to think about life. Education is for more than just a few hours of your day or a few parts of your life. That's why there are liberal arts colleges.

[Belacqua]

By the way, @vulcanlogician: long time no see!

I hope life is treating you well.

[Ahriman]

Appears, yeah. But not necessarily. If most (or all) of the members of a society are "making themselves useful", but the society is stagnating or getting worse, then it isn't really good that all those people are making themselves useful.

Yes, that seems to me exactly the kind of question that should be addressed. 

When we call something useful, we need to ask "useful for what?" There is always an implied aim. 

In discussing college classes, "useful" generally means that it's directly applicable to a money-making career. More and more, college is seen as exclusively aimed at career prep of this type. But it's a philosophical question as to whether people should learn other things too.

And since a thing that is useful always points to a goal that is beyond itself, then it makes sense to ask what the end point of that aiming is. What you say is exactly right here: if everyone is "making themselves useful," but people are getting more and more miserable, then we need to reconsider our goals.

But it won't happen. People are too complacent to change anything. They never knew what to do in the first place, let alone know what to do in a world that is making them obsolete. I'm sure they have pretty much given up at this point, although they never made an honest attempt to create a world worth living in to begin with. We need a brand new group of leaders, who are not at all like the leaders we've had for so long. People who are willing to implement drastic changes.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I needed a credit and found "Introduction to Philosophy."

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I needed a credit and found "Introduction to Philosophy."  

One of the requirements for my history degree was introductory calculus. It was never adequately explained why.

Boru

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I needed a credit and found "Introduction to Philosophy."  

One of the requirements for my history degree was introductory calculus. It was never adequately explained why.

Boru

History has no end of calculating people.