Maybe that's the point, it exposes falsehoods in reasoning rather than providing knowledge.

In my opinion philosophy is edifying in a way that other avenues of inquiry are not. The special sciences are by comparison 'workmanlike' and approximate labor, whereas philosophy more properly involves 'thinking.' It's possible to do a job in a special science, but not really to think in the interesting sense.

Additionally, I would like to know why you like philosophy. I feel the reason I like philosophy is because I like rational argumentation.

Why did a metaphysician become a metaphysician? Why not a scientist?

I'm a lost soul, just looking to get even more lost. The point is its pointlessness.

In my opinion philosophy is edifying in a way that other avenues of inquiry are not. The special sciences are by comparison 'workmanlike' and approximate labor, whereas philosophy more properly involves 'thinking.' It's possible to do a job in a special science, but not really to think in the interesting sense. — The Great Whatever

With all due respect to you, TGW--a thoughtful philosopher, this particular statement about scientists is kind of close to hogwash. (Hogwash is not a pig's bath water; it's swill for swine.) I'm not a scientist, and was not personally insulted, but scientists really do "think"... and deeply at that.

For my part, I consider philosophy to be a field in which people study a corpus of works by writers, some of them 2500 years old, in whom nothing new is going to be discovered. (Like, "I never noticed before that Plato mentioned how much he admired brain surgeons.") Philosophy is narrowly focused on the nature of the cosmos, this world, and us--mostly us, and a bucket full of vague abstractions like "truth". As such, philosophy has at various times hatched new fields (such as psychology) which have gone on to supersede the achievements of philosophy in specific ways.

It is not the only field of study by which one can become a better thinker. Most fields of study--geology, history, biology, literature, art criticism, mathematics, music, physics, theology, sociology, chemistry, supply chain management, etc. require one to think clearly and practice systematic and disciplined thought.

If someone likes philosophy, they should study it. If they don't, they need not fear they will end up as intellectually impoverished copier repairmen, or drudges doing dreary, third-rate workmanlike tasks in the astrophysics or quantum mechanics laboratory.

I still say there is a sense in which philosophy demands and rewards thought in a way the special sciences don't. In the special sciences, first and foremost you have work to do. It may take more brainpower than flipping burgers, but ultimately it's the same kind of thing. The special sciences aren't serious about questioning their own foundations and history and so on. They lack a certain self-awareness and edification. Husserl speaks of the spiritual emptiness that attends them, which is what drove him to be a philosopher rather than a psychologist or mathematician.

With all due respect, this is quite simply philosophical navel-gazing. Philosophy is not "better" than other fields. If anything, it often falls behind the advancements of science by not utilizing the evidence gathered by science.

A scientist could easily say that the philosopher is wasting their brainpower on fruitless ideas that will never be solved, and should be doing something more productive.

I never said it was better. I said it was more edifying. Special sciences are, if you like, more useful. Or, in other words, there is a difference between the person who knows the value of wasting time, and the person who insists time ought not to be wasted. The latter is a worker -- he has a job to do, and utility. But then, dildos have jobs to do as well.

If someone likes philosophy, they should study it. If they don't, they need not fear they will end up as intellectually impoverished copier repairmen, or drudges doing dreary, third-rate workmanlike tasks in the astrophysics or quantum mechanics laboratory. — Bitter Crank

Well, the world is such that you end up a wage slave no matter what you do, probably. Professional philosophy is dehumanizing in its own way, and so is astrophysics. But philosophy itself can sometimes offer substance and relief, whereas astrophysics cannot. Or so I want to claim to you.

But philosophy itself can sometimes offer substance and relief, whereas astrophysics cannot. — The Great Whatever

Erm, I like to go out with my telescope at night and look at DSOs, planets, and stars, and although this is not astrophysics, it is very substantial and relieving of my boredom.

I don't think philosophy offers relief just in the sense of relieving boredom. If boredom was the only problem life wouldn't be so bad.

Life isn't bad at all. Boredom is about as bad as it gets for me. :P

There's no point to philosophy other than what meaning I attribute to it. Sometimes that's just relieving boredom, sometimes because I doubt ideas I have or discover they're inconsistent and want to resolve that, sometimes I just want to learn something because a particular subject interests me.

As I get older though, more and more subjects bore me as they are usually more of the same without a real resolution. Practical philosophy like ethics and political philosophy continue to interest me the most as I've grown more attached to life and how to live it properly. This is opposed to my past interest in metaphysics, where I used to have a lot of fun with metaphysics.

And mustn't forget logic. If you don't know the basics of logic you can't reach any meaningful conclusions about anything as you'll most likely made a mistake somewhere.

But is there any point in doing professional philosophy? — darthbarracuda

I'll ignore the "professional" part as it doesn't apply to many of us, including me, but I'm reminded of the scene in a Jack Nicholson movie where he says to Helen Hunt "You make me want to be a better man." At its best, doing philosophy makes us better people. Hard to ask for more than that. (And coming to conclusions would just spoil the fun for future generations, no? Besides, that's what science is for.)

WOW!

Mega post.

If I see this correctly, you have a 'question' as the OP, then by a single point followed by 12 consecutive questions.

I have some time on my hands, so I'll just write some of my usual crap.

What is the point of philosophy? — darthbarracuda

A question... well sort of a question.

What I see here is the implication in this more so than the interrogative (so to say).

The point implies a sort of definitive answer (must be). Is that at all the case with such a field investigation and accumulation of knowledge... various investigations and various knowledge, as in plural?

It would appear to me that philosophy touches on far too many investigations and is in the pursuit of too many fields of knowledge to ever settle on a single point to it all. Philosophy is set of multi use tools and applied in many a different context; thus establishing a single purpose seems a bit off.

I could very well list off a few points of applied and theoretical philosophy, but none of these would be 'the point'.

I can try to address the individual questions, but none of them address 'the point' either. Rather, these questions address specific context and specific application of philosophy.

For what it's worth, I'll give it a whirl.

But is there any point in doing professional philosophy? — darthbarracuda

If you happen to be a professor in an institute of higher education, the professional pursuit of philosophy (degrees, publications and such) are evidence accepted by such institutions of competence, as well as being a defined standard of measure with which candidates for such positions can be judged.

Provided you wish to be a professor, there is quite a point to doing professional philosophy.

Is it just intellectual masturbation? — darthbarracuda

I suppose it could be, but it isn't all of the time.

My take is that intellectual masturbation is less an activity, but more an accusation of those engaging in philosophy who feel either bored, disinterested or left out of the debate.

Truth is, anything can be from some perspective or another be discussed ad nauseam. Be it can we define a chair, is the cup red, baseball stats or what the Kardashians are up to (which for me occurs in less than 3 seconds). I suppose the 'intellectual' label attached does not really occur regarding the Kardashians, but doesn't that hing upon what one labels as intellectual?

Can philosophy ever come to a conclusion? — darthbarracuda

To what question?

Sorry this is rather vague and I have no idea what to do with it.

If it can, how does it do so and why hasn't it happened often? — darthbarracuda

Has it happened not all to often are were you personally not aware of it all too often?

It seems to me that there have been a lot of conclusions in the field of philosophy. There are a hell of a lot of 'therefores' in every debate and philosophical bit of writing. Those are conclusions.

Are you sure you mean conclusions or do you mean consensus?

If it cannot, then what it the purpose of philosophy? — darthbarracuda

Philosophy is the love of knowledge... that does not imply philosophy is the love of possession of facts/truths. Philosophy is the pursuit of knowledge... you don't need to possess it, but simply pursue it.

Also, an application result of philosophy is the elimination of assumptions that are themselves in error, but have been long assumed to be the fact/truth. Philosophy often serves the purpose of debunking, but not always. (see I'm back on the 'a purpose' and not 'the purpose' mantra regarding philosophy)

Can pure reason alone bring about true facts? — darthbarracuda

You mean in application of the tools of logic?

If so, then no.

Tools are used to build and construct. The problem I see here quite often is the confusion of the tools with the workers. A hammer does drive in a nail, but the hammer does not swing itself or make the focused impact upon the nail without a worker both swinging and focusing.

Even in maths...

2+2 = 4

Fine...

... but 2 of what and 2 of the other gives 4 of what?

The content and the context matters. Also, the refinement of that matters as well.

2 litres of fluid added to 2 other liters of fluid seem to logically give one 4 litres of fluid, but what if the fluids are not both water, but one being water and the other liquid nitrogen?

Anyway...

Reason, logic and maths are simply tools that can be applied to investigate and define/refine 'true' facts, but they really are no more than tools, so other than an internal logical consistency void of specific context and content they can be either correct or incorrect. Problem is that outside of this vacuum our reality has context and content, so allow the tools to be applied to such matters and not be thought of as something that grants one facts or truths in and of themselves.

How can we know if we have reached a true conclusion? — darthbarracuda

I suppose one has made all the best attempts possible to included all relevant variables and exclude all non-relevant/bias and field the best possible conclusion one can... given the tools of reason, logic and maths one can apply.

Here's the fun bit...

... if you change the variables or refine and adapt the variables, you may well have a 'new truth'.

I have to clarify who I am here, as I view fact and truth to be dynamic processes of adaptation/refinement and not static absolutes void or ignoring adaptation/refinement.

What even is reason to begin with, and why is it regarded as infallible (from an evolutionary perspective)? — darthbarracuda

I think I just addressed that, but I'm not really too clear what you are asking.

Are these questions even worth arguing about if they will never be solved? — darthbarracuda

Indeed they are!

What could possible be more dangerous than someone laying claim to an absolute answer to such a question that indeed does not have a conclusive answer and pimp that absolute answer as a means to gain control or power over others... preventing them from investigating and finding even more... far more refined... question to contemplate?

Just how many megalomaniacs have been derailed via critical thought?

When I order a book on contemporary metaphysics and read it from front to end, have I gained any new knowledge? — darthbarracuda

If you read carefully and have a decent memory, you are now aware of what was written in that book.

How you apply this is up to you.

As for it being new... what matters here is far less the time in which something originated, but the time in which you have experienced it. It is new to you. If it is new in the context of the history of philosophical writings matters little.

Beyond this, I cannot say much, as I have really no idea what you have read.

Personally I don't bother much with metaphysics, as it is far too anthropomorphic and egotistical for my taste, but one can indeed learn from anything. I learn from negative examples as much as I can from positive ones.

Or have I just been presented with several out of countless other theories about the nature of the universe? — darthbarracuda

Again...

... I have really no idea what you have read; thus it would be hasty of me to field an answer.

Is this really all philosophy is, a back and forth see-saw of arguments with no actual progress, other than negative claims? — darthbarracuda

I think a simply chronological evaluation of philosophy from the ancients cultures to the present might show some rather obvious progress.

There are a list of both negative and positive claims being fielded in this chronology.

Two questions...

Is the speed with which you observe or become aware of changes simply too slow for your taste?

Are you sure there are no positive claims or do you tend to focus more and more upon negative claims to the point you have the feeling that there are no positive ones out there?

----------------------------------------

Was this intellectual masturbation?

I tried to keep the answers short, but hey... you ask a hell of a lot and also seemed to have implication of a given or granted (that there is a 'the point'... a must be definitive answer) that I wish to place into question, as I tend to take nothing for granted.

Why do I take nothing for granted?

My travels in philosophy.

Anyway...

I could probably do much better than this, but hey... I'm no longer a professional. Not sure if I ever was, but hey... standards of measure vary, eh?

Meow!

GREG

For me philosophy is like a tool belt that a journeyman/journeywoman wears as they work through their day, each day, every day. To a 'thinker', with each question may come an answer, but not many are conclusive answers, and that is where I look to the discipline of philosophy. In practicing philosophy it allows me to gain the knowledge (tools) to fill that tool belt. Whether it is a moral, ethical, logical, religious or metaphysical idea to entertain, we have the tools in our belt to get us a bit further down the path of exploration of that idea, but rarely, if ever, is an absolute truth discovered.

Intellectual masturbation doesn't measure up to the real thing, so I'd advise against too much of it, just in terms of pleasure received per erg of labor.

Re: The Sciences vs. Philosophy

Is it the case, perhaps, that when philosophy spun off its various proto-scientific businesses, that a fair amount of philosophical practice went with them?

After all, it has been the case for quite some time that science has labored to find the truth about various things, like 'the cause of disease' or 'the motion of the planets'. True, they didn't arrive at any truths immediately, and neither did philosophy. But the search for [at least some of the] truths which philosophy embarked upon was achieved in its spin-offs--like biology and astronomy. Girolamo Fracastoro in 1546 published a work on "contagion" in which he discussed cause and effect in disease. He wasn't exactly on the mark with respect to specifics, but he did correctly theorize that disease was caused by agents, of some kind. He didn't know what those agents were, and it would take 300 more years before Pasteur, Lister, and Koch (et al) nailed down "germs" (bacteria) as the cause, and 20 years after Koch, viruses were identified as a cause of disease too.

Yes, very workmanlike labors were required. We knew what bacteria looked like (since the mid 1600s, a century after Fracastoro). Antonie van Leeuwenhoek made his own lenses (a skill he learned on his own--he was otherwise in the cloth/clothing/drapery business--which enabled him to see these "little beasties". He can't be faulted for not theorizing his way to the little beasties being the cause of the boil on his backside. That would be a leap too far. Koch (1876) published his Postulates in which he formalized how to identify the bacterial cause of a disease.

Viruses were discovered by passing the juice of diseased tobacco plants through porcelain filters and applying the resulting fluid to healthy tobacco plants. Voila! Bacteria left behind, something disease-making passed through. Tobacco phage virus discovered. Sounds simple, but some deep thought preceded the experiment (which probably didn't work the first time around). Soon after biologists discovered that a cancer of chickens could be caused by a virus too. Then they figured out how vaccinations worked, and what other diseases were caused by viruses (like chickenpox, smallpox, mumps, measles, herpes, etc.

You already all know about the WHO, WHEN, WHERE, WHY, AND THEN-WHAT of the motion of celestial bodies.

Less happily, but nonetheless impressively, the line of thinking which led to e=mc2 and on to the big KABOOM! in the desert of New Mexico required depth of thought -- deep deep depth, not just a shovel or two sized hole.

Yes, separating U235 from U238 was tedious workmanlike stuff involving very big magnets, Milled uranium ore—U3O8 or "yellowcake"—is dissolved in nitric acid, yielding a solution of uranyl nitrate UO2(NO3)2. Pure uranyl nitrate is obtained by solvent extraction, then treated with ammonia to produce ammonium diuranate ("ADU", (NH4)2U2O7). Reduction with hydrogen gives UO2, which is converted with hydrofluoric acid (HF) to uranium tetrafluoride, UF4. Oxidation with fluorine yields UF6. During nuclear reprocessing, uranium is reacted with chlorine trifluoride to give UF6: U + 2 ClF3 → UF6 + Cl2.

All very workmanlike.

Chemists began theorizing about how atoms and molecules fit together and interacted long, long before they would ever see anything like an electron microscope image of atoms or molecules.

Philosophers asked "what is matter?" Chemistry and physics provided the answer. Philosophers might not like it that we now know that a brick is made up of molecules and molecules are made up of atoms and atoms are made up of sub-atomic particles like the Higgs Boson, and perhaps...

Philosophers asked "What is "mind" and where is it?" It seems like a waste of time for philosophers to now diddle around with speculation that maybe mind is somewhere else other than between the ears. We know, for a fact, that if you start scooping out bits and pieces of the soft, fatty gelatin-textured, grayish pink brain, the "mind" starts going haywire in short order. A scoop here, and the person can no longer recognize language. A scope there and the person can recognize, but not generate language. A scope back there and vision begins to dis-integrate. The unfortunate subject might start seeing horizontal lines instead of whole images. Snip a bit of the brain stem out and the person will be unable to wake up -- since that little snipped piece wakes us up in the morning and puts us to sleep at night.

Keep scooping out bits and pieces and before long the mind, and the person who was represented by it have disappeared forever.

Maybe ideas exist in the ether and maybe we get our bright ideas by intersecting with a cloud of potent abstractions floating about, but if philosophers can't come up with some sort of evidence of the truth of that idea, then they should follow the practice of their workmanlike offspring and dispense with the idea altogether.

Philosophers search for truth, and Philosophy spawned the means of finding at least a good many truths. "Truth" itself is a nonentity like "Good". Nowhere in the universe is there a pile of "truth" and "good" waiting to be discovered, so stop talking about it that way.

Some things remain open to useful discussion. What is a "good life"? There isn't any final answer to the question, because it depends on the specifics of one's situation. The richest people in the world have children. Bill and Melinda Gates' children face a different "good life" problem than someone who is born with quite average intelligence, no inheritance, and no bright opportunities spread before them. Both groups of children can live lives of extraordinary goodness, but the details of their lives will be very different.

"What should I do?" and "What is it reasonable to hope for?" are also fruitful topics. Everyone benefits from thinking about what actions are meet, right, and salutary. People are well advised to NOT hope for a lottery win. Not only is it immensely unlikely, but it often brings little happiness to the winners, who are not at all prepared to be millionaires. (I'm ready, willing and able--with plans for spending $100 million--after taxes--but I never buy tickets, so... it's not very likely I'll win.)

But is there any point in doing professional philosophy? Is it just intellectual masturbation? — darthbarracuda

Professional philosophy? More often than not.

Okay, I won't be facetious. Your question is about 'philosophy' proper. It will come down to what we think 'philosophy' is, which is itself a meta-philosophical question. All of your questions themselves seem like philosophical questions of a sort, and in their posing already in some sense require philosophy, or express a desire and a need for philosophy. All this inverted-millenarianism of the 'end of philosophy' and the 'end of wahh' I think is bogus. Whatever situation we find ourselves in, there will always be a need to create concepts and debate about the virtues and vices of particular concepts. It is not intellectual masturbation because a real mastery of thought is gained, not just in terms of determining 'bad' or 'good' ways of thinking, but also in being able to be better quipped to orient oneself in the world and toward their projects in meaningful ways that demonstrate careful deliberation, and not just taking the word of others. And even if we take the word of others, wouldn't you want those beliefs to be founded on something more than just mere whim?

Philosophy is, in my mind, one of the most useful things to do. It helps us master whatever craft we're engaging in on a higher level of sophistication, and defeats the ability of others to mystify or dupe us.

Can philosophy ever come to a conclusion? If it can, how does it do so and why hasn't it happened often? If it cannot, then what is the purpose of philosophy? — darthbarracuda

Philosophers come to conclusions all the time. But I suspect you mean an eternally irrefutable conclusion. Why would I want one of those? I can't really do anything with it.

Can pure reason alone bring about true facts? How can we know if we have reached a true conclusion? What even is reason to begin with, and why is it regarded as infallible (from an evolutionary perspective)? Are these questions even worth arguing about if they will never be solved? — darthbarracuda

Again, all of these are philosophical questions, in that answering them requires the practice of philosophy. In my eyes, that good philosophers can reasonably disagree on how to answer them speaks to the strength of philosophy, and its usefulness in any new circumstance. We should worry about the lifespan and usefulness of philosophy if all the answers are agreed upon and over with.

There is no point to philosophy, it is exceptionally dull.

There are some razors that crop up in philosophy.

Do you really believe that?

No, I just thought I was being clever. I love philosophy!

I like Deleuze and Guattari's definition: philosophy is the creation of new concepts. New concepts are created to find new ways of looking at problems, so there is plenty of philosophy going on, on that definition, in the sciences, whether hard, natural or human, certainly in the arts and crafts; and in fact in just about any field of human thought and activity you can think of.

Doing philosophy is an eliminable part of being human; of being, as Heidegger says (roughly), 'a being whose own being is an issue for it'.

Doing philosophy is an eliminable part of being human; of being, as Heidegger says (roughly), 'a being whose own being is an issue for it'. — John

For Heidegger, Dasein is being whose own being is an issue for it, and it is also related to the fundamental basis of being-in-the-world as conditioned by care or concern [Sorge]. This explains the fundamental comportment, as well as the underlying mood, of a philosopher (or anyone in their particular engagement 'Being-in' a world) to create new concepts in a fidelity to truth as disclosure of new worlds (an aletheic truth). But it is not enough to explain philosophy itself, or even establish the continued existence and health of philosophy. What Heidegger is looking at are much broader existential-phenomenological ('ontological') questions of what it is to be human, and whether they're 'philosophers' is no guarantee simply because their way of being involves care. Of course Heidegger was lead to some anti- or post-philosophical pronouncements in favour of 'thinking', or even later in favour of the poetic as the last hope of the use of language for this aletheiac function.

As for Deleuze, his meta-philosophical thought also informs my own considerations on it. But I wonder if phrased so (i.e. 'concept creation'), we're providing too weak and broad of a definition of philosophy, for Deleuze himself considered certain works of his to be properly 'pure' philosophy (e.g. The Logic of Sense) in contrast with his more well-known works with Guatarri (Capitalism and Schizophrenia).

I agree with you, I study philosophy on my own time and for fun as a hobby.

As I get older though, more and more subjects bore me as they are usually more of the same without a real resolution. — Benkei

This is a very important point I was trying to get across. Philosophy for the most part seems to just revolve around and around and around the same thing until everyone gets bored and a new idea pops up. There's a reason there's a National Science Foundation and not a National Philosophy Foundation. Much of philosophy is, to the dismay of its practitioners, utterly worthless to society.

I think the issues with Dasein are fundamentally philosophical issues; how to cope, how to be, how to live, and so on. I agree with you that after his 'turn' Heidegger thought of philosophy as more akin to poetry than to systematic analysis. I think with Being and Time, Heidegger attempted to walk a path involving a systematic phenomenological analytic and synthesis; a path which he subsequently abandoned in favor of his 'Holzwege'. These 'forest paths' lead to no 'final destination', and that it is the essence of philosophy, or "thinking" for the late Heidegger.

Perhaps the reason Deleuze favored works like Logic and Sense and Difference and Repetition is that he saw them as 'pure' philosophy, as you say, rather than 'meta-philosophy'. The idea that there is philosophy (concept creation) in all areas of human life need not rule out the idea that there is "pure philosophy" ( pure concept creation or concept creation for its own sake) just as the existence of applied math does not rule out the possibility of there being pure math.

Maybe it could be said that metaphysics or ontology are the most "pure problems" that demand the most pure concepts and concept-making. Poetry is image and sense-making, so would it not also qualify as 'concept-making' or philosophy?

But then, what about ethics? Is it pure philosophy or applied philosophy?

Philosophy is, in my mind, one of the most useful things to do. It helps us master whatever craft we're engaging in on a higher level of sophistication, and defeats the ability of others to mystify or dupe us. — Shevek

Would you agree that philosophy is something that is inherently part of a human being? To think philosophically, to use reason, it is inevitable and unavoidable?

At its best, doing philosophy makes us better people — Baden

I can see how it may make us more patient or better thinkers but an overall better person, nah. If anything philosophy makes someone arrogant and reclusive.

Would you agree that philosophy is something that is inherently part of a human being? — darthbarracuda

Absolutely not. In some trivial sense, everyone does philosophy in that they, perhaps sometimes on a lonely night, 'wonder what it's all about', or have disagreements with other people about certain things. But I think that to do philosophy as a craft requires the taking up of certain commitments regarding the long-term refinement of one's own thinking, a willingness to open up all belief and values to revision, as well as a worldly-engagement of praxis in dialectical relation with one's philosophy. All of this is by no means guaranteed, and in fact rare because it's hard work.

Actually I'd even argue that one has to engage with the actual discourse and philosophical texts before one can 'do it', or otherwise a community where you can engage dialectically so that specific discursive features and a shared language are developed that can be recognized as 'philosophical'. I'm not sure if it makes any sense for philosophy to be done by a solitary individual with no context of a community: concepts and language are socialized. It isn't something totally innate and guaranteed...what would we need to refer to to make such an argument?

To think philosophically, to use reason, it is inevitable and unavoidable? — darthbarracuda

There's two questions here (unless you equate thinking philosophically with using reason, which I wouldn't, although they're intimately related). Again, these two things are used in certain manners--everyday practical reason, for example--but how one interprets and thinks of what reasonable or philosophical thinking entails will depend on social, historical, and cultural contexts.

The point implies a sort of definitive answer (must be). Is that at all the case with such a field investigation and accumulation of knowledge... various investigations and various knowledge, as in plural?

It would appear to me that philosophy touches on far too many investigations and is in the pursuit of too many fields of knowledge to ever settle on a single point to it all. Philosophy is set of multi use tools and applied in many a different context; thus establishing a single purpose seems a bit off. — Mayor of Simpleton

Science touches on countless investigations, from physics to biology to chemistry and the specialized fields. The point of science is to settle our curiosities about the world and make accurate predictions of the world.

So what about philosophy?

My take is that intellectual masturbation is less an activity, but more an accusation of those engaging in philosophy who feel either bored, disinterested or left out of the debate. — Mayor of Simpleton

True. I don't find the philosophy of language to be very interesting at the current moment, for example. In fact I find it boring as hell.

Astronomy could be seen as intellectual masturbation, and yet most people including myself find it at least curiously interesting. So I guess one person's sleeping pill is another person's caffeine.

Are you sure you mean conclusions or do you mean consensus? — Mayor of Simpleton

Yes, that is what I meant. Last time I checked, the scientific consensus for global warming was 97+%. The philosophical consensus for the nature of time, for example,...mixed and it always will be.

Do philosophers gain any new knowledge? Does a philosophical theory count as knowledge? Or is it just unprovable speculation? This is the biggest point I'm getting at here. If there is no way of verifying something, then why assert it? Why even try if it is futile? Has philosophy given us any knowledge? Is there any consensus on anything?

It doesn't make any sense, to me, to formulate complex arguments, debate and critique and assert and attempt to get to the "truth" if it is impossible to get to it. It's completely worthless.

Yes, ethics and political philosophy can help us in the real world, I will give you that. But metaphysics? How the hell do we verify if a theory in metaphysics is correct? We can't! It's absurd!

All it can give us is a warm little feeling of "I think this is the way the universe is" but nothing more. The only confirmation we are going to get from a normative ethical position is "well, this makes sense to me..." There's never going to be an E=MC^2 of philosophy. There's not even going to be an agreement on what the definition of a word is.

Philosophy is the love of knowledge — Mayor of Simpleton

I used to think this of philosophy as well. I used to think philosophy was an underrated thing that held countless intellectual secrets. I thought by reading philosophy I would gain knowledge about the world and be wise, know the fundamentals of the universe and become like a guru almost.

And this doesn't make any sense now. From my perspective, philosophy is just a mis-mash of disagreements and confusion.

Why isn't science part of the "love of knowledge"? Surely science has given far more than philosophy has.

Sorry for the rant, but I'm bitter after getting pissed on by other people on a separate forum.

Thanks for the reply.

EDIT: To add one more thing: what are you expecting to get out of philosophy?

f anything philosophy makes someone arrogant and reclusive. — darthbarracuda

Philosophy makes us arrogant? I wouldn't have thought so. If anything, I'd say doing philosophy is a good way to teach ourselves humility. As for reclusiveness, it may make us fussier about our choice of friends, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

I guess it is arguable that philosophy makes us better people overall, but I did say "at its best" and I'd have no truck with it if I didn't believe it was somehow - to borrow @The Great Whatever's term - edifying.

Philosophy does not necessarily make someone arrogant. But it does have a propensity to do so.