Philosophy is futile

[nadroj1985]

Philosophy in many respects tries to use the faculties of the pitifully small human brain to define, comprehend and explain aspects of life. This is bound to failure.

And the really fun part is that, without philosophy, you'd never have figured out that it was bound to failure

How can we know where the bounds are, if we don't test them, and attempt going beyond them?

 

[Norea]

Saying philosophy is bound to failure is like saying your car engine isn't based on thermodynamics. Philosophy is merely a formalization of logic structures we use to see the world and a means to weed out fallacies. If you don't use 'philosophy' you're not thinking, ever. That means you can't read a Bible, or go to church or drive your car. You have to think to do these things thus you are implicitly using philosophy/logic structures to divine the world around you. You folks are starting to remind me of all the Maoist tracts I've read, purely irrational and anti-human.

-- Bridget

 

[Norea]

I would also love to see some Catholics and readers of St Thomas of Aquinas to chime in here. I wanna see a one two KO on this topic.

-- Bridget

 

[TrueQ]

It could be said that life is futile, my man, but that isn't going to stop most people from doing it, likewise with philosophy. It's kind of like humankind's hobby.

 

[zoe_uu]

IMO those who think Philosophy is futile simply can't or won't take the time to understand it. Does your hatred of philosophy include Christian philosophers?

 

[Norea]

Woot! Thomas of Aquinas...John Locke... That's all I can think up right now well you could say Copernicus, Galileo Galeli and so on...

-- Bridget

 

[nadroj1985]

^Immanuel Kant, Rene Descartes (not positive about these two, but I know they were theists, at least), St. Augustine of Hippo, , GWF Hegel, St. Anselm, Boethius, Francis Bacon, and many more, I'm sure.

 

[innodonni]

Hmm.

Guys, I'd like you to know, when you're depressed it's very difficult to say everything right. Unfortunately I don't understand everything you write back, but I am in a better frame of mind to reply.

There seem to be many clever people including important scientists among the philosophy crowd. There isn't anything wrong with them. My gripe is merely that they tend to use the same techniques to criticise theories that they use to construct them. I get frustrated by how confused it's possible for me to get analysing their logic!

IMO those who think Philosophy is futile simply can't or won't take the time to understand it.

I've tried honest! I still study it at school, and it's quite fun if you see the funny side of it - we study the "analysis of the critique of the major criticisms of the arguments against the theory"!

Does your hatred of philosophy include Christian philosophers?

Well, my hatred for philosophy does not necessarily mean I hate the philosophers. I try not to treat the theories of Christians differently from the athiests, so I still find logical errors in them. I have quite a bit of respect for Thomas Aquinas, and I know how important he is for Catholics. It's just that when you think that his five ways were pretty much identical and try to apply worldly laws (those derived from observation) to God and such, one has to wonder if that's a valid assumption!
(i.e. cause-effect, must be necessary first cause = God, maximisation on the scale of morality = God, etc.)

Never mind though. I've found what I've been searching for. There is a philosophical theory that there is no fundamental basis for knowledge. This seemingly destroys all the achievements of philosophy and of the theory itself! I'm satisfied that philosophy has become as rediculous as I had thought.

As for whether philosophy is futile, well it depends on your definition. Many here have argued that rationality and logic are important, a view with which I agree. But since many philosophers make such liberal mistakes in their theories, I have to say that my view of the profession of philosophy as a whole is quite low.

However, side tracking a little, an interesting thing to bear in mind is that I as a lowly philosophy student may not have the logical capacity to be qualified to criticise them. Any theory has it's limits, since we're all human. And Wittgenstein's anti-realism states that it only means as much as people subjectively interpret from it in the same community. Maybe I'm just interpreting it all wrong. After all, that seems a simple conclusion to an otherwise large problem.

Meh. I scare myself sometimes.

 

[Socrastein]

Philosophy is a pursuit of truth and understanding. If you do not value truth, and you don't care to understand reality, then you will see philosophy as futile.

In which case, I would say your existence is futile, because you sir are a slave to your own ignorance and self-assuredness.

 

[innodonni]

you don't care to understand reality

"The wonder is not that man comprehends the universe, but that the universe is comprehensible"

I think when studying philosophy it's possible to deny everything you think you know as a fact in order to determine through logic what parts of it are true and what parts are false. I could quote Socrates by saying "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance", but it is debatable how wise this is.

you sir are a slave to your own ignorance and self-assuredness

One answer could be "touche", but that isn't constructive. I do try to be open to learning, since I think I am ignorant in many respects. I'm only human, so I can't understand reality any other way than subjectively, which may or may not be true reality.

 

[Chrysalis Kat]

I think that studying philosophy gave you a major brain cramp and so you resolved that it’s just meaningless pursuit after all.
I guess that one way to deal with it (or better said, not deal with it)

Hang in there. Expanding your mind is a good thing, even when it hurts.

 

[morningstar2651]

This thread is futile.

 

[Gracchus]

Meh. I scare myself sometimes.

In this you are wise, Grasshopper.

 

[dElIrIoUsLy:mIcH]

I am currently taking a philosophy class at my university. I honestly cannot stand that class. My professor is an atheist, and lectures on the disproval of God. It is disturbing for me to sit in that class and listen to his poorly thought out arguments. . .and the arguments of past atheist. But at the end of the day, I read Colossians 2:8

NIV Version

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

 

[morningstar2651]

I am currently taking a philosophy class at my university. I honestly cannot stand that class. My professor is an atheist, and lectures on the disproval of God. It is disturbing for me to sit in that class and listen to his poorly thought out arguments. . .and the arguments of past atheist. But at the end of the day, I read Colossians 2:8

NIV Version

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

Why don't you just refute his arguments?

 

[Kal'thzar]

Yes, If your confident enough you could refute them, hey then you can post your refutations on CF and we can talk about it.

 

[Socrastein]

I am currently taking a philosophy class at my university. I honestly cannot stand that class. My professor is an atheist, and lectures on the disproval of God. It is disturbing for me to sit in that class and listen to his poorly thought out arguments. . .and the arguments of past atheist. But at the end of the day, I read Colossians 2:8

Heaven forbid you have to put up with views that aren't your own. My philosophy teacher was a devout Catholic, and there were a couple times in class where he brought up bad arguments for God, most notably the argument from ontology. But I never let that ruin my experience or my respect for him. If you hate that class because you're exposed to opposing views, then you don't belong in a philosophy class at all. You should just stick with Church and Bible Study where you can listen to everyone tell you how right you are.

Also, I concur with the suggestions that if your teacher's arguments are indeed so poor, you should post them and refute them.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I give these reasons for believing Philosophy to be futile:

For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
[1 Corinthians 1:19 (Isaiah 29:14)]

This just sounds like an excuse early Christians must have given when they lost philosophical debates with Greek philosophers.

You know: "Sure, I lost that debate, but, uh, I redefine the loser as the winner! Yeah, that's the ticket!"

 

[kedaman]

This just sounds like an excuse early Christians must have given when they lost philosophical debates with Greek philosophers.

You know: "Sure, I lost that debate, but, uh, I redefine the loser as the winner! Yeah, that's the ticket!"

who defines who wins anyway? Or do you think there is an objective game which everyone has to agree on?
Pythagoras: Truth is subjective, it is mere opinion.
Socrates: Do you really mean that something is true by virtue of being my opinion?
Pythagoras: Yes.
Socrates: Then my opinion is this: Truth is not subjective, truth is objective and you are wrong.
Pythagoras: You are correct.
Who wins?

 

[Eudaimonist]

who defines who wins anyway? Or do you think there is an objective game which everyone has to agree on? Who wins?

The person with the more logical, evidence-supported argument. Who else would win a debate? Or do you think it really is arbitrary?