Yes, I wonder who could have introduced it into this discussion?
That’s not really why, but never mind.
Are you under the impression that anyone, anywhere, would ever want to disagree with that?
I don’t think that my premise is faulty nor do i agree that I don’t grasp the idea behind philosophy. But I still have this question, keeping in mind that it, itself is philosophical.
It’s easy enough to justify philosophy looking back on it. But there was no reason to begin other than that people are convinced that the answers are out there somewhere, and are there for the taking. But why else consider these things?
Making up answers is definitely philosophy…
Maybe certain questions seem philosophical at first. But that’s why they are recategorized at later time when current understanding renders formerly ridiculous things, approachable. If a question can be studied by science that means that it was never philosophy. The question simply existed under that pretence until there was some observable evidence that an answer could be derived.
So no thanks on the “philosophy answer questions over centuries.”
What the responses seem like to me is trying to justify people wasting centuries of collective time approaching something the wrong way innumerable times. And don’t get me wrong, people have always done that, that’s humanity not philosophy.
You know what’s a great philosophy? The earth is at the center of the universe
Once upon a time a scientist was called a natural philosopher. The distinction was made for good reason, and philosophy stays at bay with its very characteristic questions, because of that distinction.
I do appreciate, however, VERY much so, when someone sees my implications.THANKS TRIPOLAR At least at that point, the original question may begin to be answered, else wise:
People wave you off because they assume your question has no good foundation. And then they presume to teach you about how they know what’s up.
I smell a fallacy poop faces… and a bunch of people trying to prove that there is some self evident reason for philosophy as if there were a legitimate reason other than pure interest to partake in sports, or the humanities. Because in my opinion there isn’t much difference, other than that the philosopher may be better at surmising a reason, or conditions under which philosophy would seem of import.
What it seems like, is some peeps got annoyed that what I said sounds like I’m saying philosophy is a load of “bull”. And maybe in some way they’re right. But defending philosophy by dismissing its critics isn’t very logical.
And philosophy cannot claim logic. That’s not philosophy at all. That may be a tool philosophy uses extensively, but it is not inherently part of philosophy.
But I do agree that sciences should philosophize. Asking questions leads to new questions and often new ideas and answers come out both directly and indirectly.
But REALLY peeps…philosophy wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t almost entirely based on the attempt to answer unanswerable questions
Again, i urge you to note that answerable questions handed over to science are not philosophy, and using the question being posed itself as a justification for philosophy’s existence is not a very good justification.
Let’s get a whole bunch of people together to try and answer these questions with just thinking about them.
Time better spent in mathematics I would say.
You’re not going to logic your way into the workings of a single celled organism. You’re going to sit around speculating until somebody takes a microscope and tells you about it. Then you’ll sit around and speculate some more.
I understand that many people leave philosophy in college because of the many reasons they would leave college of any focus for that matter. If that was your point than I retract this random thought, but I know it wasn’t. I know your point was to discredit me. And that’s okay. It’s part of your psychology. You need to discredit people to justify your own convictions.
That doesn’t make you a good philosopher though.
I would logically say, that my “philosophy” on this matter is much more sound than thou art.
Let’s define philosophy:
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It is distinguished from other ways of addressing fundamental questions (such as mysticism, myth, or the arts) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument
So in simpler terms… logicking our way to speculative answers on matters beginning to be approached by science, and with all likelihood solve by science.
You know what’s really funny. Science allows there to be enough material for philosophy to actually exist. But philosophy has spent centuries and gotten pretty much no where with it’s fundamental questions
Not to say you couldn’t make a major out of it. Throw in some courses about logic, some history of philosophy, maybe some courses on different kinds of philosophy, and then some other crap to fil in the spaces.
You know what? why not make football a major.
THERE is NO REASON that football should not be a college major. Not if philosophy, art, and humanities can be achievable degrees.
You know what? Screw it, I’m going to study the crap out of CANOEING. CANOEING has led humanity towards many goals in the past! It is a sport and it was once a useful mode of transportation. I could study everything about it, in fact at least with CANOEING, there is a practical application after all of it.
Then again, maybe philosophy has a major impact on the world when it is applied. BUT SO DOES anything done by many people.
Also a terrible reason to justify studying philosophy.
It should be discredited and discarded, like religions
Also, i LOOOOOOVE philosophy, it’s my favourite things in the world. But that’s why i’m questioning it. Don’t you guys know anything about questioning your own convictions? Or are you just sure of everything you say all the time. SToooooooppid stupid stupppppid
Please forgive all us stooopid people for trying to answer your question. Obviously you know all the answers already and have nothing to learn, unlike the rest of us.
And on top of all of that. Maybe philosophy does treat serious problems in a manageable way, but the questions REMAIN unanswered. Why, because philosophy sucks. it’s pretentious, unyielding and has nothing to show for itself except arguments.
People will probably benefit when philosophy logics its way out of being hungry.
You want to eat? You have to eat
You want to solve a problem? you have to solve it…
Things with no results are generally discarded out of uselessness.
However, philosophy builds on that uselessness and speculates some more
I’m not saying you are stupid. The answers were stupid. It’s appreciable not to infer what’s not intended.
Also you’re doing it again
But I want to be clear. I disagree with LAMIA and NJTTT
everyone else seems to have something legitimate to say
I have not had any interest in this thread for a while, but, just to counter some of the, shall I say, rudeness this seems to be devolving into, I would like to note that the silent consensus is, I am certain, that Lamia and njtt as well have legitimate things to say.
Indistinguishable, you are absolutely correct
You’re doing philosophy right here.
Well, maybe not that last sentence at the end. But, still, yeah, philosophy.
We need to address fine questions about what counts as evidence; how much are we justified in extrapolating from a single peek through the microscope? What counts as proof? What counts as disproof? How do we choose between competing claims that claim to embrace the same findings? We need a philosophy of science to do science.
So, you acknowledge how rude you are being.
mhmm
i got upset
Now that you have your emotions under control, don’t do it again. You’re not allowed to call other posters childish names unless you are posting in The BBQ Pit.
I disagree with that assertion. I am studying in the sciences, but that does not make me disapprove with philosophy, nor the idea of it. Philosophy, to me, is the study of methodology and reasoning. To an certain extent, it is more “scientific” than some traditional sciences, like biology. In philosophy, it seems to follow the format if A, then B. This is very much like math or physics, etc. Whereas, my biology stuff? We’re using stuff like stochastic processes, Poisson distribution, silly stuff like that. WAG is converted to “hypothesis.”
I was once confronted with the assertion that philosophy is useless, and I’m ashamed to say, I had no response.
But now I can think of at least 3 reasons why studying philosophy is not useless:
[ul]
[li]You can’t really avoid doing philosophy. Average Joe has philosophical beliefs, he just doesn’t ever challenge them, or look at what other people may have to say about them.[/li][li]In philosophy, while it can be hard to establish a truth, it’s often easy to show a falsehood. This combines pretty well with the first point. Many people strongly hold beliefs that could be shot down with 5 minutes of objective study.[/li][li]Finally of course, it’s true but misleading that philosophy rarely finds truths. Because whenever a branch of philosophy becomes useful, testable, it ceases to be called philosophy any more (it becomes maths, or physics or cosmology etc). I work in neuroscience and the science of cognition absolutely builds on, and works alongside, philosophical theories of the mind. [/li][/ul]