# Is philosophy really worth studying? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [January 9, 2017, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-philosophy-really-worth-studying/776696 "2017-01-09T01:32:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Machinaforce](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/aeb1de/32.png) [@Machinaforce](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machinaforce)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-philosophy-really-worth-studying/776696/41 "2017-01-09T21:58:00Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > It’s showing that a proof doesn’t work, which is something. Plus of course, on the actual god question, we can use principles like occam’s razor, which we all use in our everyday life (knowingly or not), to show it’s not sensible to believe something with no grounds for belief. > > This might be the crux of the problem you’re having. > > For me, I don’t actually need to know that there is an external, independent reality: there are good reasons to behave as though there is regardless. I don’t know, and can’t know, whether all this is a dream say. But I know I can suffer physical and emotional pain and I can reduce these things by my actions in the “dream”. > > Furthermore, this is actually another time where we can use Occam’s: if there’s nothing outside of the “dream” then the difference between dream and reality is moot. But the hypothesis that there is an outside is vulnerable to the razor: I should assume there is no outside until I have reason to suppose otherwise. > > But I live my life the same as anyone, plus I take an interest in philosophy. Clearly real humans in the real world do not freeze just because they can’t explain everything. They just move under the illusion that they know even though they don’t. Also Occam’s Razor doesn’t really apply here. If there is no external reality then the things you do don’t matter, nor do other “people” then. And yes humans do freeze once they know they can’t explain anything, you’re just not there yet. ---
**Author:** ![Machinaforce](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/aeb1de/32.png) [@Machinaforce](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machinaforce)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-philosophy-really-worth-studying/776696/42 "2017-01-09T22:07:28Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > There’s been some good answers in this thread—yes, philosophy does help us sharpen our cognitive faculties; and yes, philosophy gives rise to the individual sciences (actually, I don’t believe there’s really a useful distinction between ‘science’ and ‘philosophy’—it’s just that people seem to take philosophy that produces ‘results’ as naively defined, call it ‘science’, and then go on complaining that philosophy never produces any results—which those of us having paid attention in their philosophy classes on sound logical reasoning will recognize as the informal fallacy of ‘moving the goalposts’). > > But actually, the best argument for philosophy and its importance, to me, is that it does produce concrete, visible results, that in fact are so entrenched within our everyday world that, like air, they’re all too easily missed. It doesn’t matter if you take politics, society, ethics; ideas like democracy, universal human rights, the social contract; or developments like universal suffrage, equality between men and women, or the recognition of animal rights—if you go back far enough (or just a little, in some cases), you’ll find them discussed in dusty tomes of philosophy long before they really enter into everyday life. > > However, once they have, it becomes hard to imagine that things might be different; and the flipside of that is that, steeped in present society, it needs some training to see beyond its borders and question its tenets—training that the study of philosophy provides. The philosophical argument, all the while, moves on to topics that may seem as bewildering to the average Joe today as the idea that women might vote to the 18th century farmer, or the notion of democracy to the medieval aristocrat. (Of course, that’s an idealization; ideas never really develop in quite such an orderly, linear fashion, but it’ll do as a first approximation.) > > So, those who typically question the value of philosophy do so while enjoying their social liberties, their right to vote, their social security, their equal rights, and so on, all the while wondering—but what has philosophy ever done for us? > > (No, I’m not saying that philosophy was solely responsible for all the social change for the better in the world. I’m also not saying that there isn’t plenty of stupid philosophy around, the above ‘simulation argument’ being a case in point. I’m admittedly exaggerating somewhat, but only to counterbalance the all-to-prevalent ‘philosophy is just navelgazing eggheads’-point of view.) > > One thing that I think everybody should take away from philosophy is a willingness and ability to question one’s assumptions, and recognize especially the unspoken, implicit ones. In some cases, this doesn’t get us very far, perhaps: if we ask, how valid is it really that we believe there is an external world, and we find out that it turns out we don’t really have good justification for that, then well, this doesn’t really help us terribly much—except, perhaps, in building value systems that make life worthwhile even in this case, as **Mijin** alluded to. But once we started questioning how valid it really is that women are inferior to men, we started building a better, more just society (a process which, of course, remains unfinished to this day)—so, while sometimes you don’t really get much of objective value, occasionally, you hit upon a game-changer. > > And without many experiments perhaps coming up with nothing more than another tome nobody reads (but that at least got somebody tenure, maybe), we’d never hit the occasional paydirt. The irony is that philosophy actually undoes everything you just said. Human rights is a vague term that means anything people want it to, no one even knows what exactly constitutes a “right”. Some argue that they are just privileges. Questioning whether reality exists does nothing, morality is just a popularity contest as right and wrong aren’t objective. Philosophy can undo modern society if it was given a bigger place than it already has. Because when you question why you should treat people better, or why you should even care about others, you realize there is no “obvious” truth there. It’s just something we do, but do we have to? It also doesn’t do a good job of arguing against suicide or why to stay alive. For all the talk about the big questions it doesn’t do a thing about any of them. By questioning my own assumptions I realized that I didn’t “have to” do anything. There isn’t a “moral obligation” towards others, I could be free to not care. You also learn that might makes right in any situation and that those with the power make the rules. Justice is really just an opinion as well, there will never be true justice as the definition will always change. Even the notion of progress is arbitrary as there is no objective level of better or worse. All philosophy is just someone’s opinion. Your “concrete visible results” are little more than simply sand castles. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2017, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-philosophy-really-worth-studying/776696/43 "2017-01-09T22:41:11Z")
> [@Machinaforce](#): > > The irony is that philosophy actually undoes everything you just said. Human rights is a vague term that means anything people want it to, no one even knows what exactly constitutes a “right”. Some argue that they are just privileges. > > Questioning whether reality exists does nothing, morality is just a popularity contest as right and wrong aren’t objective. Philosophy can undo modern society if it was given a bigger place than it already has. Because when you question why you should treat people better, or why you should even care about others, you realize there is no “obvious” truth there. It’s just something we do, but do we have to? It also doesn’t do a good job of arguing against suicide or why to stay alive. For all the talk about the big questions it doesn’t do a thing about any of them. > > By questioning my own assumptions I realized that I didn’t “have to” do anything. There isn’t a “moral obligation” towards others, I could be free to not care. You also learn that might makes right in any situation and that those with the power make the rules. > > Justice is really just an opinion as well, there will never be true justice as the definition will always change. Even the notion of progress is arbitrary as there is no objective level of better or worse. All philosophy is just someone’s opinion. > > Your “concrete visible results” are little more than simply sand castles. And you’ve just touched on some important philosophical issues. How did you do that without your ability to think philosophically? ---
**Author:** ![Machinaforce](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/aeb1de/32.png) [@Machinaforce](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machinaforce)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-philosophy-really-worth-studying/776696/44 "2017-01-10T00:00:22Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > And you’ve just touched on some important philosophical issues. How did you do that without your ability to think philosophically? I read it in a book. I didn’t think about these things. But what you said is beside the point as such questions have no answer. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-philosophy-really-worth-studying/776696/45 "2017-01-10T01:37:31Z")
I am pretty sure the op is just whooshing now but I’ll still play. So the op espouses a philosophy that eschews “analysis paralysis” and that promotes trusting what you think you know and acting on it. His cartoon caricature of a student of philosophy is [Chidi from “The Good Place”](http://www.nbc.com/the-good-place?CID=Search%7CThe-Good-Place&nbc=1) … or [Buridan’s ass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan's_ass). The knowledge of which allows one to get a joke in Big Bang Theory before they explain the crap out of it. 🙂 Of course that is a philosophical perspective and one that has significant and deep historical roots continuing into more modern philosophers. Support for the op’s philosophical perspective can be found all over: John Stuart Mill “A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury.”; Lao Tzu “Stop thinking, and end your problems.”; and my favorite, Terry Pratchett "The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.” But OTOH: Albert Einstein “The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.”; and “Don’t be a dumbass” My Dad. Of course the real world choice is not between shooting (acting) without aiming (thinking) and aiming without shooting. Neither of those but the venison on the table. Thinking is a skill. You want to practice skills so they become easy, so automatic that you can do them without thinking. Uh oh. Has this become a set M that consists of all sets that do not include itself? Damn you philosophy! Maybe QtM and DrPaprika can help us? Nooo - they’d be the paradox. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-philosophy-really-worth-studying/776696/46 "2017-01-10T01:50:22Z")
> [@Machinaforce](#): > > But what you said is beside the point as such questions have no answer. As with many of your threads, there are answers but you just don’t like to accept them. Not all answers are universal. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-philosophy-really-worth-studying/776696/47 "2017-01-10T02:37:35Z")
> [@Machinaforce](#): > > They just move under the illusion that they know even though they don’t. > > Also Occam’s Razor doesn’t really apply here. If there is no external reality then the things you do don’t matter, nor do other “people” then. Strange that you’d throw out these philosophical statements in a thread being dismissive of philosophy, but fine, since I enjoy studying philosophy I’m quite happy to debate on this. My opinion on “real” and “illusion” is that it’s a mistake to consider them attributes of entities. For example, if I have a dream about a vampire, the conception some people have is that the entity “vampire” has the property “illusion” but looking at things this way becomes problematic, with just one example being: “What if _everything_ is an illusion, what does that _mean_?” What I think, is that real and illusion are just labels for _interpretations_ of events. At any time the interpretation that best explains events, and makes the best predictions, is “real”. All others are illusions. The solipsism hypothesis right now doesn’t explain anything, and in fact adds an explanatory gap, because we need to know, for example, why other humans behave as though they have the same rich inner experiences as I do. There is no apriori reason why that would be the case. And in terms of the Simulation Hypothesis, that’s asserting that there is a better interpretation without saying how it better explains the totality of events, or offering any empirical evidence. Right now it is occam’s vulnerable. > [@](#): > > And yes humans do freeze once they know they can’t explain anything, you’re just not there yet. So I’m not a _True Scotsman_ philosopher. Can you name someone who is? ---
**Author:** ![pool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pool/32/4152_2.png) [@pool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pool)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-philosophy-really-worth-studying/776696/48 "2017-01-10T02:56:43Z")
I’m not a huge fan of philosophy and a lot of it does seem to be mental/verbal masturbation. Socrates especially was pretty flawed in his “logic”. That said when I read Plato’s Republic I was really impressed how applicable his dialogues of the city he describes relating to oligarchy, tyranny, etc. were to a lot of modern politics and government and the guy did seem way ahead of his time in many ways, the stuff he talked about then is still relevant and prescient of what was to come. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-philosophy-really-worth-studying/776696/49 "2017-01-10T04:56:05Z")
I recommend “Primary Philosophy” by Michael Scriven. He gives a nice summary of the field, and covers both sides of largely contended ideas. He explains monism and dualism, for instance, without actually taking sides. For theology, he introduces the notion of “a basic god” so that, at very least, we can all be pointing at the same thing when talking about “God.” (A response to the predictable retort, seen here often, “Define ‘God.’” Okay. He does so.) Very readable, and rather fun. ---
**Author:** ![Dr\_Paprika](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr_paprika/32/3042_2.png) [@Dr\_Paprika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr_Paprika)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-philosophy-really-worth-studying/776696/50 "2017-01-10T06:03:36Z")
Is anything worth studying? You might study something because you find it interesting, or because it has practical value, or because you have to. I have studied basic philosophy and like some philosophers, and not others. Sometimes it provides subtext to history or religion. Though ethics and logic are important, philosophy is not the only royal road to these topics. The few people I knew who majored in philosophy were argumentative and pedantic, and I think the practical value of studying a lot of philosophy is modest. But I never took a formal philosophy course perhaps to my detriment. ---
**Author:** ![Machinaforce](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/aeb1de/32.png) [@Machinaforce](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machinaforce)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-philosophy-really-worth-studying/776696/51 "2017-01-10T08:01:39Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Strange that you’d throw out these philosophical statements in a thread being dismissive of philosophy, but fine, since I enjoy studying philosophy I’m quite happy to debate on this. > > My opinion on “real” and “illusion” is that it’s a mistake to consider them attributes of entities. For example, if I have a dream about a vampire, the conception some people have is that the entity “vampire” has the property “illusion” but looking at things this way becomes problematic, with just one example being: “What if _everything_ is an illusion, what does that _mean_?” > > What I think, is that real and illusion are just labels for _interpretations_ of events. At any time the interpretation that best explains events, and makes the best predictions, is “real”. All others are illusions. > > The solipsism hypothesis right now doesn’t explain anything, and in fact adds an explanatory gap, because we need to know, for example, why other humans behave as though they have the same rich inner experiences as I do. There is no apriori reason why that would be the case. > > And in terms of the Simulation Hypothesis, that’s asserting that there is a better interpretation without saying how it better explains the totality of events, or offering any empirical evidence. Right now it is occam’s vulnerable. > > So I’m not a _True Scotsman_ philosopher. Can you name someone who is? But if the other people are fake/imaginary then it doesn’t mater what happens to them right? There would be no reason to treat, regard, or feel for them in the same manner as one would if they where real. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 9:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-philosophy-really-worth-studying/776696/52 "2017-01-10T09:11:06Z")
> [@Machinaforce](#): > > But if the other people are fake/imaginary then it doesn’t mater what happens to them right? There would be no reason to treat, regard, or feel for them in the same manner as one would if they where real. Well first of all it depends what scenario we’re talking about. But yes, if we’re saying other people have no subjective experience, that they’re just p-zombies or simpler, then sure it doesn’t matter if you murder someone, say. Note this runs contrary to your original point though. Because if we’re saying “What difference does it make?” well clearly it does make a difference. And if we’re saying “It’s unknowable whether solipsism or the simulation hypothesis is true” well, how would we know it’s unknowable without having done philosophical study? ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-philosophy-really-worth-studying/776696/53 "2017-01-10T09:18:11Z")
The best response to solipsism was given centuries before its most famous proponent was even born. “If God had asked me for advice, this would be a lot simpler” - Alfonso X of Castille. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 10:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-philosophy-really-worth-studying/776696/54 "2017-01-10T10:13:48Z")
> [@pool](#): > > I’m not a huge fan of philosophy and a lot of it does seem to be mental/verbal masturbation. Socrates especially was pretty flawed in his “logic”. That said when I read Plato’s Republic I was really impressed how applicable his dialogues of the city he describes relating to oligarchy, tyranny, etc[…] > [@Dr\_Paprika](#): > > I have studied basic philosophy and like some philosophers, and not others. At the risk of hijacking (and I think I’m already the lead poster here…), this is one aspect of philosophy that I don’t like. The whole thing that studying philosophy means studying _philosophers_, and famous philosophical treatises, and not just ideas and concepts on a particular topic. There should be a distinction between History of Philosophy, and Philosophy, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-philosophy-really-worth-studying/776696/55 "2017-01-10T12:07:28Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > I am pretty sure the op is just whooshing now but I’ll still play. Yep, that’s what the OP does in threads like this. \*\*Machinaforce \*\* you are trying to dismiss the value of Philosophy using arguments grounded in Philosophy. Now what? You clearly think about stuff to the point of overthinking. I bet a bit of philosophy training would do you good. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-philosophy-really-worth-studying/776696/56 "2017-01-10T14:17:57Z")
If other people don’t exist, I’m still not going to murder them, because I don’t want to be a murderer. That experience would, I believe, do me harm. So it didn’t matter to me whether other people really exist, because I’m still going to act like they do. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![Machinaforce](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/aeb1de/32.png) [@Machinaforce](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machinaforce)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-philosophy-really-worth-studying/776696/57 "2017-01-10T20:52:25Z")
> [@WordMan](#): > > Yep, that’s what the OP does in threads like this. > > \*\*Machinaforce \*\* you are trying to dismiss the value of Philosophy using arguments grounded in Philosophy. Now what? > > You clearly think about stuff to the point of overthinking. I bet a bit of philosophy training would do you good. I don’t overthink things until I had training in philosophy. It’s because of the thinking treadmill of philosophy that I’m stuck. ---
**Author:** ![Machinaforce](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/aeb1de/32.png) [@Machinaforce](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machinaforce)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-philosophy-really-worth-studying/776696/58 "2017-01-10T20:53:27Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > The best response to solipsism was given centuries before its most famous proponent was even born. > > “If God had asked me for advice, this would be a lot simpler” - Alfonso X of Castille. How would that be a response to solipsism? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-philosophy-really-worth-studying/776696/59 "2017-01-10T20:55:34Z")
> [@Machinaforce](#): > > But if the other people are fake/imaginary then it doesn’t mater what happens to them right? There would be no reason to treat, regard, or feel for them in the same manner as one would if they where real. You’re engaging in philosophy: congratulations. ---
**Author:** ![Machinaforce](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/aeb1de/32.png) [@Machinaforce](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machinaforce)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-philosophy-really-worth-studying/776696/60 "2017-01-10T20:57:47Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Well first of all it depends what scenario we’re talking about. > > But yes, if we’re saying other people have no subjective experience, that they’re just p-zombies or simpler, then sure it doesn’t matter if you murder someone, say. > > Note this runs contrary to your original point though. Because if we’re saying “What difference does it make?” well clearly it does make a difference. And if we’re saying “It’s unknowable whether solipsism or the simulation hypothesis is true” well, how would we know it’s unknowable without having done philosophical study? Because philosophical study itself is the problem. It asks this question but it doesn’t need have an answer to it or any way to find it out. In fact it explicitly states that it is impossible to know the answer yet stupidly asks the question. It doesn’t even answer what to do if the world is imaginary, what then? What does that say about the pursuit of knowledge or of morality? All those would be moot if others are just a figment of the mind. Solipsism is just one of many examples of the failure of philosophy. A question with no answer or way to figure out and all it does is create massive doubt about the world to the point of it being crippling. You also didn’t answer my question about if they are just figments of the mind then it doesn’t matter what you do, philosophical questions about the world and everything don’t matter, it’s all just in your head. It is essentially how philosophy commits suicide. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-philosophy-really-worth-studying/776696.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-philosophy-really-worth-studying/776696.md?page=4)