What is philosophy for?

[mindlight]

I have been really distressed recently by the apparent irrelevance of much philosophical chatter. Whether with word games, nihilistic non questions, smart alec jargonisation, posturing and abstraction, or logical nonsences the conversations seem to have deteriorated and lost sight of the real purpose of philosophy.

Philosophy should be about the meaning of life. It is for life and about life. It is the pursuit of the kind of wisdom that changes cultures and provides the seminal thinking that defines the next generation.

The methodologies of philosophers- logical argumentation from clearly defined premises, the ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of various positions, the ability to see a system as a whole and explore and improve its systematic consistency should be subordinate to this task. Philosophy in a sense is the belief that a mans mind has enough light in it to be able to reason its way to meanings and by exploring them to deepen ones awareness of them. It has the humility to recognise its limits and by its arguments demonstrates the limits of reasons and is more connected to the real issues of its culture and time than much of the relativistic and jargonised nihilistic rantings that passes for philosophy these days.

Has philosophy lost its way? Has it become the minority pasttime of jargonised professionals and lost the common touch that once allowed to define eras and lay the foundations for future actions for better or for worse?

 

[The Nihilist]

I have been really distressed recently by the apparent irrelevance of much philosophical chatter. Whether with word games, nihilistic non questions, smart alec jargonisation, posturing and abstraction, or logical nonsences the conversations seem to have deteriorated and lost sight of the real purpose of philosophy.

Are you talking about this forum, or about professional philosophy as a field? Because your criticisms sound like they're about an internet forum. If that's the case, the internet is terrible. Look somewhere else to be inspired.

 

[Verticordious]

Philosophy lacks any precise definition, and is pretty much just one big joke. Philosophy has never contributed anything tangible to society, and is just another one of the many pseudosciences out there. People often use philosophy in attempt to confuse people into believing things by using word games and quaint little sayings that sound smart and clever, but lack any evidence to support the claims being made.

My advice about philosophy is the same as Paul's in Colossians 2, beware of people who come trying to convince you of things with persuasive sounding arguments. Regardless of how intelligent the argument may seem, always ask to see the evidence. Evidence is what separates a scientist from a philosopher.

So, to answer your question, the purpose of philosophy is pretty much just to deceive gullible people. Stay away from it.

 

[Gracchus]

Philosophy lacks any precise definition, and is pretty much just one big joke. Philosophy has never contributed anything tangible to society, and is just another one of the many pseudosciences out there. People often use philosophy in attempt to confuse people into believing things by using word games and quaint little sayings that sound smart and clever, but lack any evidence to support the claims being made.

My advice about philosophy is the same as Paul's in Colossians 2, beware of people who come trying to convince you of things with persuasive sounding arguments. Regardless of how intelligent the argument may seem, always ask to see the evidence. Evidence is what separates a scientist from a philosopher.

So, to answer your question, the purpose of philosophy is pretty much just to deceive gullible people. Stay away from it.

That is an interesting philosophical position, but hardly a new one.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Philosophy lacks any precise definition, and is pretty much just one big joke. Philosophy has never contributed anything tangible to society, and is just another one of the many pseudosciences out there. People often use philosophy in attempt to confuse people into believing things by using word games and quaint little sayings that sound smart and clever, but lack any evidence to support the claims being made.

My advice about philosophy is the same as Paul's in Colossians 2, beware of people who come trying to convince you of things with persuasive sounding arguments. Regardless of how intelligent the argument may seem, always ask to see the evidence. Evidence is what separates a scientist from a philosopher.

So, to answer your question, the purpose of philosophy is pretty much just to deceive gullible people. Stay away from it.

You realise that Christianity is a philosophy as well as a religion, right? The Bible is all about philosophy.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Has philosophy lost its way? Has it become the minority pasttime of jargonised professionals and lost the common touch that once allowed to define eras and lay the foundations for future actions for better or for worse?

It still does define eras because philosophical ideas filter down through any culture. However, it has been kept in the ivory towers for far too long.

At one time, western philosophies (such as Epicureanism and Stoicism) were spiritual, but Christian influence had split philosophy in two, with logical arguments going in one direction and spirituality heading in the other. Once Western philosophy becomes whole again by having real relevance for day-to-day life, we may see a revival of interest in such philosophy.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

It is a good idea to try and keep philsophy practical.

Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have.

This pragmatic maxim influneced the logical positivist's "verification principle". As we find people today talking of "testability" rather than verifiability, a concept developed by Carnap, modern philosophy is certainly of no consequence.

I feel that although some debates seem far removed from everyday life, they touch on it tengentiallly.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Just because something isn't part of reality, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed or considered.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Just because something is unrelated to reality, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed or considered.

In what way does philsophy discuss things unrelated to reality? Issues of being, knowledge, responsibility and morality, the mind and it's relation to the body, or the application of logic and analytic skill to these issues, and an understanding of their nature and limits, are certainly related to reality. Even when someone blesses the holy hooves of the IPU they are likely to be trying to affect reality in some way.

 

[SithDoughnut]

In what way does philsophy discuss things unrelated to reality? Issues of being, knowledge, responsibility and morality, the mind and it's relation to the body, or the application of logic and analytic skill to these issues, and an understanding of their nature and limits, are certainly related to reality. Even when someone blesses the holy hooves of the IPU they are likely to be trying to affect reality in some way.

Sorry, I should have said 'isn't part of' instead of 'is unrelated to'.

 

[Motus]

My advice about philosophy is the same as Paul's in Colossians 2, beware of people who come trying to convince you of things with persuasive sounding arguments. Regardless of how intelligent the argument may seem, always ask to see the evidence. Evidence is what separates a scientist from a philosopher.

If Paul is advocating seeking evidence rather than persuasive words as you say, then that is funny because we are expected to accept Paul's persuasive words without evidence.

 

[daniel777]

Philosophy lacks any precise definition, and is pretty much just one big joke. Philosophy has never contributed anything tangible to society, and is just another one of the many pseudosciences out there. People often use philosophy in attempt to confuse people into believing things by using word games and quaint little sayings that sound smart and clever, but lack any evidence to support the claims being made.

My advice about philosophy is the same as Paul's in Colossians 2, beware of people who come trying to convince you of things with persuasive sounding arguments. Regardless of how intelligent the argument may seem, always ask to see the evidence. Evidence is what separates a scientist from a philosopher.

So, to answer your question, the purpose of philosophy is pretty much just to deceive gullible people. Stay away from it.

how do i know you aren't trying to deceive gullible ol' me?

... that's where philosophy comes in.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

edit

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Sorry, I should have said 'isn't part of' instead of 'is unrelated to'.

Philosophy is both part of reality (obviously) and discusses real things like morality, knowledge, art and political systems. So, I don't know how what you say can be true...

 

[Eudaimonist]

Regardless of how intelligent the argument may seem, always ask to see the evidence. Evidence is what separates a scientist from a philosopher.

How do you know this? Philosophy.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[SithDoughnut]

Philosophy is both part of reality (obviously) and discusses real things like morality, knowledge, art and political systems. So, I don't know how what you say can be true...

I know reality can be discussed, but often philosophical discussion goes into the realm of hypotheticals, which are obviously not reality. I think that even if something is entirely hypothetical, it's still worth discussing, whether the answer has any bearing on our interpretation of reality or not.

 

[mindlight]

Philosophy lacks any precise definition, and is pretty much just one big joke. Philosophy has never contributed anything tangible to society, and is just another one of the many pseudosciences out there. People often use philosophy in attempt to confuse people into believing things by using word games and quaint little sayings that sound smart and clever, but lack any evidence to support the claims being made.

My advice about philosophy is the same as Paul's in Colossians 2, beware of people who come trying to convince you of things with persuasive sounding arguments. Regardless of how intelligent the argument may seem, always ask to see the evidence. Evidence is what separates a scientist from a philosopher.

So, to answer your question, the purpose of philosophy is pretty much just to deceive gullible people. Stay away from it.

There are unreal philosophies that merely echo the premises of false cultures and religions and compound these deceptions in the lives of those that subscribe to them.

However sometimes philosophers have insights that Christians need to understand as they summarise historical moments and answers to intellectual dilemmas deep in the psyche of their host nations. Hegel in many ways articulated the basis of the Prussian state and contributed to the sense of inevitable momentum and right that the military machine there had. Marx articulated the deep injustices in the division between rich and poor in the nineteenth century and the historical forces that were underway to change that. Nietzsche perceived something of the personal inauthenticity of much of nineteenth century religion in Europe and how it had lost touch with rawer impulses and creativity. In some ways he anticipated the European struggles and wars of the first half of the twentieth and the loss of moral restraint that characterised these wars.

These were insights that Christians were unwise to simply reject as they had too much power in the cultures in which Christians would have to live in. They needed to be reckoned with and answered with philosophy, faith and actions.

 

[mindlight]

It still does define eras because philosophical ideas filter down through any culture. However, it has been kept in the ivory towers for far too long.

At one time, western philosophies (such as Epicureanism and Stoicism) were spiritual, but Christian influence had split philosophy in two, with logical arguments going in one direction and spirituality heading in the other. Once Western philosophy becomes whole again by having real relevance for day-to-day life, we may see a revival of interest in such philosophy.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Scholastics like Aquinas were both logical and spiritual and in the twentieth century Barth might be exhaustive example of reasoning about faith although few philosophers have even begun to wrestle with his writings and I suppose you could argue that he was a good example of that separation between faith and reason. Afterall he suggested that without faith as your starting point reason has nothing of any worth to say on spiritual matters.

The choice between reasoned positions about faith that cannot be shared by definition with the faithless and hollow logical arguments of no meaningful spiritual worth is itself corrosive of the value of philosophy. My own view is that Christianity can articulate a third way between the two extremes and thus make possible interfaith dialogues and even dialogues with the godless also with philosophy as a vehicle by which meaning can be communicated and explored. If philosophy is just an inhouse talking shop to discuss biblical truthes then it may miss the big trends of this generation that are being articulated by philosophers outside that framework with the brains God gave them and entrench traditions and prejudices that are less to do with scripture than with entrenched lobby groups in the Christian camps. If on the other hand philosophy has become a hollow secular set of logical rules and methodologies and word games then its relevance to anything worthwhile is questionable.

 

[mindlight]

It is a good idea to try and keep philsophy practical.

This pragmatic maxim influneced the logical positivist's "verification principle". As we find people today talking of "testability" rather than verifiability, a concept developed by Carnap, modern philosophy is certainly of no consequence.

I feel that although some debates seem far removed from everyday life, they touch on it tengentiallly.

I do not believe that philosophers have to talk the language of sound bytes such as we find in todays headlines to be relevant. Many of them speak words that the papers would reject, but they resonate more deeply with the thought life of entire cultures, they observe for the first time the cracks in consciousness that will smash nations and they articulate the thoughts that will underpin future generations.

 

[mindlight]

I know reality can be discussed, but often philosophical discussion goes into the realm of hypotheticals, which are obviously not reality. I think that even if something is entirely hypothetical, it's still worth discussing, whether the answer has any bearing on our interpretation of reality or not.

When one wrestles with the invisible thoughts of Zeit Geist consciousness one might be forgiven for not giving scientific empirical proofs for all one says. Science is an inappropriate tool in many of the realms of philosophical discussion. That our understanding of reality has become so materialistic is a relatively new historical phenomena and even today not a global way of thinking. But it seems obvious to me that such questions as how one perceives reality and comes to know a thing, how we can determine the source and manner of morality, the nature of meaning, the purpose of life, destiny and origin, the nature of human dignity, the goals and methodolgies of reason are questions which impinge upon the nature of the reality we all inhabit. Even dreams shape nations. Sometimes philosophical discussions explore questions that do not seem immediately relevant to us but which becomes so soon enough.