Poll: Philosophy: Important or a Waste of Time?

[Vindestructable]

EDIT: Just to clarify, I mean philosophy as in the academic subject as it currently exists, not the general school of thought.

Now what I'm about to say really depends on where you are studying but In my experience and the experience of just about everyone whose opinions I respect most academic subjects are fucked up to begin with. Philosophy has a lot to do with personal opinion so to teach it well you need to be able to teach the basic concepts with out injecting your own personal opinion.

It comes down to someone teaching you what to think as opposed to how to think and most people (especially college professors) seem to have a hard time grasping this concept.

 

[HardkorSB]

Hey guys. I have to take a Philosophy class this year, so I've been reading the required book over the summer, and OH MY GOD IS THIS THE STUPIDEST SUBJECT EVER!

See, I'm a very hard sciences kind of guy, so reading about dead Greeks' abstract theories on trivial bullshit (a lot of which have been proven false by modern science) seems like a complete waste of time to me. Why bother with high concept ideas that can't be proven and are inapplicable to real life?

What do you guys think about the subject? Are there any philosophy aficionados out there that can teach me the error of my ignorant ways?

EDIT: Just to clarify, I mean philosophy as in the academic subject as it currently exists, not the general school of thought.

You learn of these past thinkers and their philosophies to see how our perception of reality evolved throughout history.
Regarding the "bullshit" that some of these philosophers are spouting - of course not everything everyone said has merit. You have to look through many ideas of many thinkers and take some from one and some from another to to make something that would be perfect for you and some of the stuff I've read in academic philosophy books are beyond stupid (especially from the thinkers from the past, before the wonders of science and technology). However, what previous generations thought about the world affected what the later generations thought.
Philosophical evolution can grow on you if you give it time.

Plus, philosophy is the most creative of all academic subjects (personal opinion but also the truth All it really requires you to do is to think. There are no real rules in philosophy. As long as you can use your brain, it's OK.

It's more fun to learn it if you want to create your own life philosophy because the complex ideas you have in your brain that you might be struggling with could have already been deeply analyzed and thoroughly explained by others in the past so you can just read that and spend less time coming to the same conclusion you would have anyway. The less time it takes, the better.

I don't know if that helps you to like philosophy more but maybe at least you will look at it from a different perspective.

 

[Danny Ocean]

all I know about philisy that doesnt it teach you hwo to argue better? like the "strawman" and "false dychotimy" type things?

That's more rhetoric, than philosophy.

Well no, it's primarily logic, which is philosophy.

Science uses deductive logic. Axioms are part of inductive logic. Religion uses inductive logic as, now, do some parts of science where the Axioms have been deduced first and then used for inductive reasoning. Logic, logic, logic. Philosophy is fundamental to scientific thought. It's how science works, so to speak. Everything else you learn in science lessons is just data that other people have gathered using those philosophical methods.

There's a chance I've embarrassingly mixed up those two terms for the Nth time.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

How can you prove you even exist without Cogito Ergo Sum?

So anything that doesn't cogito, doesn't ergo est? That's pretty fallacious isn't it. How about "I am made of things which exist, therefore I exist". Define "existence" as meaning "observable and interactable" and bam! Instant explanation.

Well, I'd let Descartes answer that, but he's dead.

How exactly do you prove
a) That you are made of things
b) That they exist
especially given you already have evidence that
a) Observable hypothesis suffer from user bias and cannot be applied to oneself.
b) Interactable isn't a proper term. If you mean "Can be sensed (touch)" then see above.

The only proof of existence is that you can find a proof to existence. Which is thought.

 

[Doclector]

Academically...it seems to miss the point. To Truly be a philosopher, to "philosophise", is to think truly for yourself. To contemplate life, the universe, and everything on your own terms. Sure you can consider the work of others, but at the end of the day, it's about what YOU think.

Maybe "philosophical history" would be a far better class? Because I don't believe in teaching people philosophy, in a way, if you've ever thought in depth about life, you've already nailed it, and who hasn't done that? It practically comes naturally to humanity.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

all I know about philisy that doesnt it teach you hwo to argue better? like the "strawman" and "false dychotimy" type things?

That's more rhetoric, than philosophy.

Well no, it's primarily logic, which is philosophy.

Ok, not doing those things is rhetoric.

 

[Torrasque]

Some philosophy is crap, true--but the same can be said for some discredited ideas in science. Doesn't mean those things aren't worth learning about.

Why bother with high concept ideas that can't be proven and are inapplicable to real life?

See, this is a philosophical statement. When you make judgements about things, you are applying a philosophy. Science uses philosophy as well (for instance, the idea that reality is knowable and that we are not all heads in jars is part of science's philosophy).

Philosophy is the foundation for other avenues of thought. So I really wouldn't call it a waste of time.

This.
lol @ heads in jars...The proof for that is so hilariously silly, I lol'd in class when my prof told it to us.

See, I'm a very hard sciences kind of guy, so reading about dead Greeks' abstract theories on trivial bullshit (a lot of which have been proven false by modern science) seems like a complete waste of time to me. Why bother with high concept ideas that can't be proven and are inapplicable to real life?

What do you guys think about the subject? Are there any philosophy aficionados out there that can teach me the error of my ignorant ways?

I find it odd that a science guy hates philosophy. I am a geology major because I can't take a philosophy major at my university, because it's technically only been a university for 3 years, and doesn't have that kind of power yet.
To be brief, science is: what, when, where, how and who.
Philosophy is: why.

To be not brief:
Philosophy is the single most important subject anyone can ever take, and I think it should be mandatory for every student in post secondary to take a minimum of 2 philosophy classes; ethics, metaphysics, and/or logic being one of the mandatory ones.
Why is philosophy important? Like I said above, philosophy is the attempt to answer "why", like "why do we exist?". Science's answer is really limited in the "why" category, because it's answer to this question is: to procreate. Well great. You exist, I exist, every single human on earth exists to breed and spawn more humans... And that really sucks. Philosophy has been trying to answer a great deal of "why"s ever since a person asked the first "why" question.
If you think about it, every single person on earth has their own philosophy. Not everyone writes, engineers, researches, or deals in things that you or I deal with. But every single person on earth has a philosophy about something. Whether it is god, existence, or cats, they have a set number of "this is ____" that define that certain something for them.

Science is limited to what can be proven using the scientific method. Granted, there will probably be a scientific reason for why we exist, that is more satisfying than "make babies", but I'm not keeping my hopes up for that.

Here is a simple philosophy question for you:
There is a train that is coming to a fork in the tracks. It is currently set to position A, where 5 random people lay tied to the tracks. You can change the position to position B, where 1 person is tied to the tracks. The train cannot be stopped, diverted, or delayed in any way, and the people cannot get up, move, or do anything to preserve their life. Someone will die in this situation, and you have to make a conscious decision to either change the position to B, or keep it at A. If you do not act, it is the same as acting (slightly more advanced philosophical concept).

So science guy (or anyone else), what position do you set it to?
(lol, I could make a thread about this...)

 

[Danny Ocean]

all I know about philisy that doesnt it teach you hwo to argue better? like the "strawman" and "false dychotimy" type things?

That's more rhetoric, than philosophy.

Well no, it's primarily logic, which is philosophy.

Ok, not doing those things is rhetoric.

You can lose logic in rhetoric. You can also abuse logic in rhetoric, as long as the audience doesn't notice. Logical theory, though, comes from philosophy. So does a great deal of rhetoric.

 

[Nickolai77]

So anything that doesn't cogito, doesn't ergo est? That's pretty fallacious isn't it. How about "I am made of things which exist, therefore I exist". Define "existence" as meaning "observable and interactable" and bam! Instant explanation.

Not really no, the whole point of his "Meditations" was to de-construct conventional sources of knowledge and re-construct a new natural philosophy based on the emerging new sciences. Descartes undertook such deconstruction by imagining that a malevolent demon made the world appear what it is- i.e, everything's an illusion, like the Matrix. Simply defining existence as what is observable doesn't really cut it, because the demon (or the machines) conjure up everything we see and interact with, even though they are not actually real.

Descartes argued against this problem by saying that there were two things we could however be certain off- That we ourselves exist because we think- cognito ergo sum, and that God also exists. Since God exists, he would not allow a malevolent demon to make us live in an illusion, and therefore everything we see must be real.

Of course the arguments not very convincing in our modern times, but Descartes work was born out of the early 17th century, and much of his work was dedicated to re-configuring natural knowledge in light of the new emerging modern science- Meditations is one major aspect of this re-adaption.

 

[Astoria]

Philosophy is kinda part of almost everything. Whether you realise it or not it's a large part of life and I quite enjoyed learning it in high school.

 

[GraveeKing]

I see there's 2 ways to look at philosophy:
-You're either bright enough to want it, so you can understand the world and everything about it, some things science and mathematics can't answer. Hence philosophy.
-You either, do not care, are too stupid to care, or simply don't understand the subjects concept. Sadly this makes up most of majority being 'don't care'. It should be an optional subject.

 

[gbemery]

Hey guys. I have to take a Philosophy class this year, so I've been reading the required book over the summer, and OH MY GOD IS THIS THE STUPIDEST SUBJECT EVER!

See, I'm a very hard sciences kind of guy, so reading about dead Greeks' abstract theories on trivial bullshit (a lot of which have been proven false by modern science) seems like a complete waste of time to me. Why bother with high concept ideas that can't be proven and are inapplicable to real life?

What do you guys think about the subject? Are there any philosophy aficionados out there that can teach me the error of my ignorant ways?

EDIT: Just to clarify, I mean philosophy as in the academic subject as it currently exists, not the general school of thought.

I have had a couple of professors tell me that the hard sciences tell us how things work and brings us new understanding of the world around us whether its through technology or just understanding through theory. While philosophy and other liberal arts studies try to give us the morals and ethics to use those theories and technology.

 

[Hagi]

I'd say philosophy is vital.

This computer you're typing on now? It's core functionality is based on ancient Greek logic, performing logical operations on binary statements (or as we now call them, bits).

Every single great speaker in modern history? He's using Aristotle's writings on rhetorics, even if indirectly.

Every single hard science we have? It's got roots in ancient philosophy. Their conclusions may be dated, but their methods and ideas are still relevant today.

 

[Yorkshire_matt]

whats the difference between philosophy and the hunt for the Higgs Boson or Einsteins theories of relativity?

Science is based in part of philosophical thinking

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

all I know about philisy that doesnt it teach you hwo to argue better? like the "strawman" and "false dychotimy" type things?

That's more rhetoric, than philosophy.

Well no, it's primarily logic, which is philosophy.

Ok, not doing those things is rhetoric.

You can lose logic in rhetoric. You can also abuse logic in rhetoric, as long as the audience doesn't notice. Logical theory, though, comes from philosophy. So does a great deal of rhetoric.

Fair enough, good sir.

 

[subfield]

My goodness my friend. I guess since your post seemed honest, I'll take it from the top.

1. "proven false by modern science". Science has never proven anything. I defy you to name something science has "proved". I can do so without fear, because I already know that if you try, you will fail.

2. "Why bother with high concept ideas that can't be proven". This had to be the funniest thing I've read in a while. You will recognize that first order logic is part of philosophy. You will also recognize that first order is the basis and foundation for the vast majority of results "proved" in mathematics today. Every result a mathematician "proves", he does so with the idea that it can be formalized in first order by a competent logician. Every theorem of first order has a rigorous "proof". Not only that, but the proofs of first order and other logics (note lack of quotes) are the only actual proofs in this whole dialogue.

I would go on, but I'm tired.

 

[The Stonker]

Philosophy is more important than science. Not by much, but by a little. It is the subject of self-examination and self-understanding. It is how we understand ourselves and others. While understanding the world around us is important, it is far more important that we learn to understand each-other.

yeah, it's hard to take a class in, but it's important.

Philosophy isn't something you learn in a class room, but rather by taking the walk of life.
But saying that it is more important then for instance physics then I must call you barking mad.

 

[Continuity]

Hey guys. I have to take a Philosophy class this year, so I've been reading the required book over the summer, and OH MY GOD IS THIS THE STUPIDEST SUBJECT EVER!

See, I'm a very hard sciences kind of guy, so reading about dead Greeks' abstract theories on trivial bullshit (a lot of which have been proven false by modern science) seems like a complete waste of time to me. Why bother with high concept ideas that can't be proven and are inapplicable to real life?

What do you guys think about the subject? Are there any philosophy aficionados out there that can teach me the error of my ignorant ways?

EDIT: Just to clarify, I mean philosophy as in the academic subject as it currently exists, not the general school of thought.

Philosophy teaches you how to reason logically and also helps you think outside the box which is very applicable for theoretical physics.

Other than that its a waste of time from a usefulness/career perspective. I know a guy with a masters in philosophy and he works in a supermarket.