Irrelevant as the problem was caused by philosophy and just illustrates how useless it is.
One only has to look at schools like solipsism and nihilism to see how it doesn’t do any good. Both seem designed to drive one to suicide with solipsism being the worst.
Now you’re not doing philosophy, but just making declarations without evidence.
Very few people actually teach solipsism; it’s a stance that most people examine, realize cannot be refuted, and set aside as unproductive. Philosophy teaches us how to recognize unproductive avenues of thought. Without philosophic examination, solipsism would have a much broader following, just the way lots of crank thinking does. Philosophy is one avenue at arriving at skepticism, which is one important form of critical thinking.
Philosophy is critical thinking. And if you think that “doesn’t do any good,” you need to re-think your position.
There may be a distinction between philosophers and the ideas they espouse, but philosophy students and texts are the first to confound them.
Let us start with my position which is that a major reason to study philosophy is to develop and hone various cognitive skill sets. To some degree it is sort of like learning to play chess or Go in that way.
One does two things to become more highly skilled in chess or Go: you play; and you study the games of past masters. (That’s how AlphaGo did it too.)
What’s the point of that though? I mean philosophy is just thinking that goes in circles.
But if it cannot be refuted then why discard it? Doesn’t that make it true? Isn’t solving that issue what the rest of philosophy hinges on? If everything is imaginary then none of what you do matters. Everything in philosophy everntually ends there if you question it enough. It can’t even verify the existence of other people. You could say it is because of philosophical thinking that solipsism has a more broad following today because is where everything leads to, a state where we cannot verify anything and have to rest on belief. It’s the hole in the hull of the sinking ship that is philopshy. And if at the foundation of anything philosophical is a belief, then why is it any different then theism? At least that has answers (even if they aren’t very good).
And as for my statement, that is the fact of my current situation. Prior to philosophy I was happier and less troubled. But now it’s just thinking that doesn’t solve problems (aka useless).
Improving critical thinking and analytic skills are just part of a well rounded education.
I suspect that your stated cognitive and emotional difficulties predate your exposure to philosophy class.
Oh, humans pffft. How is that relevant to us Overmen?
…but you are? Sure…:dubious:
Are you saying that correlation does not equal causation? But…but…how do we *know *that?! 
No, they began once I actually got into philosophy.
Also my reply to Trin’s post shows how uselsss it all is
There is a highly technical civilization on a planet around rho Eridani. You cannot refute that; does that make it true?
That can actually be debated either way. Maybe it matters, because we still have the illusion of pain and pleasure. Or maybe it doesn’t matter because even those illusions aren’t real, and this is all a dream/sim/hallucination. Debating abstractions is one of the joys of philosophy.
Have you ever done geometry? It depends on arbitrary axioms. It cannot be performed totally ab nihilo. Non-Euclidean geometry arises when one of the traditional axioms is dispensed with. And yet geometry is highly useful in everything from skyscraper construction to cosmology. The universe itself appears to be non-Euclidean.
Philosophy works the same way: we can (in thought) remove certain of our familiar axioms of existence, and see where that leads us. This applies also to political philosophy, which has led us both the democracy and to communism.
Do you seriously want to argue that these are ideas that have no real-world consequences?
I have told this here before but its appropriate.
When I was a Senior in college - back in the dark ages - I didn’t want to take a hard math course - I was a liberal arts major. A class called “argumentation” taught through the communications department met the “math like” requirement (I also took Logic for my other “math” credit - and I agree - everyone should take Logic).
The first day in Argumentation we introduce ourselves. “Hi, I’m Dangerosa, I’m graduating this semester with a degree in Film Studies…”
“Hi, I’m Dan. I pledged to DKE. I’m a Philosophy major but I’m thinking about changing it. You don’t get to just make shit up in Philosophy classes, you are supposed to study and read what other people have thought up and then you are supposed to write about it and analyze it. And then, when you get out, no one pays you to be a Philosopher!”
I looked at the Senior sitting next to me - who had introduced herself as a Philosophy major - and we both snickered. We bonded in that moment, and kept in touch for a few years - she went off to grad school at Stanford for Linguistics. (She would have been in the right place at the right time to take advantage of the tech boom, I suspect she did quite well, even if no one paid her to do Philosophy).
I still - thirty years later - wonder if Dan got the MBA he was destined for - or dropped out from too much beer pong and smacks from reality.
Pardon me, but you are really describing logic. I never took a philosophy course and have had no reason to regret it, but I’ve even taught logic.
Ayn Rand wrote an excellent book called Philosophy: Who Needs It. It was the last book she worked on before her death. Regardless of what you think of her or her philosophy, it’s a worthwhile read (though a nihilist like the OP probably wouldn’t get much out of it… or any other book).
Logic is a part of the field of Philosophy, both historically and at most colleges.
My father in law has part of a PhD in Philosophy. Specialty logic. He spent his career as a computational neuroscientist - which is a pretty good job path for someone who studied logic in the early 1970s. He’d be shocked to discover that he didn’t study Philosophy.
Let me be very clear: I believe your portrayal of your observed experiences.
You state your “life was simpler without studying it”, that you present opinions based on having read them in a book and “didn’t think about these things” but even that current state is now you “overthinking”, that your reaction to the idea “that a major reason to study philosophy is to develop and hone various cognitive skill sets” is “What’s the point of that though?”, and that you really are befuddled as to how not refuting something is not the same as proving it to be true.
Who am I to argue with how you describe your reality?
You describe having at least become aware of your cognitive and emotional difficulties after taking a philosophy class and, well, your posts are your cite. You say they exist, I see the evidence supporting your claim on display here, and you were either blissfully ignorant of them existing prior to taking a philosophy class or the class was too much and broke your brain. Could be either. I can’t say.
My own take, very seriously, is that it as is taught in Buddhism: there are many ways to bodhi (which translates variably as “enlightenment”, “intelligence”, or “awakening”). In this usage the connotation intended is more one of the mind than of the spirit is all. The study of philosophy is not required any more than playing chess or Go is, but, all joking aside, some understanding of the basic tools used to discuss the subject and of some of the classic concepts, is a reasonable part of a broad education, and part of one potential path to bodhi. But so could be taking organic chem and/or a good literature class.
And if you think philosophers are bad you should read up on Talmudic scholars someday! Oy!