No one cares about philosophy.

My vote is that philosophy, especially academic philosophy, bears little resemblance to reality. It's a fun game for we nerds to play, that's about it.

If philosophy was really about applying reason to the real world we live in, at least half the articles would be about nuclear weapons, and the assumptions which led to their invention, and our complacent relationship with them etc.

But if we look at this forum, and leading blogs such as the APA blog, we find very little to no such discussion.

Philosophy will never be a serious business if it can't even address well known ever imminent existential threats to our entire civilization.

However, as nerd entertainment, well, here I am, having a good time.

If philosophy was really about applying reason to the real world we live in, at least half the articles would be about nuclear weapons, and the assumptions which led to their invention, and our complacent relationship with them etc. — Jake

How about global warming or resource depletion? It is arguable that they are far greater threats to the flourishing, or even survival, of humanity than nuclear weapons are.

I do agree with you, though, that in the face of such threats, and the reality of human suffering, the kind of academic squabbling that goes on in these forums is inconsequential, to say the least. I am as guilty as the next guy of indulging in this egregious inconsequentiality, though! (insert inappropriate, insane laughter :rofl:).

How about global warming or resource depletion? It is arguable that they are far greater threats to the flourishing, or even survival, of humanity than nuclear weapons are. — Janus

Fair point. I tend to focus on nukes because they are an existential threat right now today. My best guess is that the kind of issues you reference will destabilize global civilization, likely leading to the use of nukes.

I'm pretty forgiving about what happens here on forums, for we are mostly "civilians" and not professionals. And we're doing the best we can, generally speaking.

However, I typically get banned, or at least totally ignored on academic philosophy websites when I raise such concerns. I don't have anything personal against academic philosophers, but I do tend to think their profession is mostly a scam upon the taxpayers.

It's crazy to reach the conclusion that philosophy bears little resemblance to reality on the basis of a single topic.

How closely philosophy resembles reality ought to be assessed on the prevalence or lack thereof of realistic positions in philosophy. To my knowledge, the more wacky positions, like idealism, and even more so solipsism and panpsychism, remain a relatively small minority.

I don't think that philosophy is better than science as a method for acquiring knowledge. I think that philosophy has been superseded in that regard by science. Philosophy is too varied and at odds with itself, whereas science is more unified and more reliable.

So far, what has been said about the shortcomings of philosophy seems quite unfair considering philosophy has played its part of providing the necessary information. What we see, in the case of nuclear weapons, deteriorating ecosystems, global warming, etc is the underwhelming human response born of inertias beyond the reach of objective philosophy. To solve such problems, humanity as a whole, through its many individuals, must come to terms with their own negativity, their fears, anger, vanity, pride, ambition, etc.

Philosophy is fun. That’s the primary reason why I do it. I have no illusions about changing the world. As a secondary reason, I think as long as I am at least open to others’ well thought out arguments and worldviews, then that makes me a better person.

I don't think that philosophy is better than science as a method for acquiring knowledge. I think that philosophy has been superseded in that regard by science. Philosophy is too varied and at odds with itself, whereas science is more unified and more reliable. — S

I think science supersedes philosophy in terms of the materialistic approach. By this I mean that, science has exceeded in investigating the material or sensible (impacting the senses) realm of the reality we recognise. However, it seems to not care much about such domains as the ethics/morals which are involved in its own activities or any other significant influences it may have, e.g. psychological, social, environmental, etc. Science (or its propagators) seems to almost have a 'jump first look later' formula.

Just as a simple thought experiment, have you ever wondered what would happen if we discovered aliens of human-like intelligence on some other planet? Often, from our projected responses, it seems that we would not like to be disturbed, primarily because we're to raw to trust what we don't know or too ignorant (if not primitive) to know how/what to know so that we may develop the necessary trust. How or why, then, would we seek others? This is a flaw I predominantly attribute to the 'scientific mind' which is not balanced by the other fields of knowledge.
I think the field of philosophy is necessarily wide to prevent one side from becoming over-developed at the expense of others. Unfortunately, that is not the position many believe and choose to be in, in science.

How closely philosophy resembles reality ought to be assessed on the prevalence or lack thereof of realistic positions in philosophy. To my knowledge, the more wacky positions, like idealism, and even more so solipsism and panpsychism, remain a relatively small minority. — S

I agree with this.

So far, what has been said about the shortcomings of philosophy seems quite unfair considering philosophy has played its part of providing the necessary information — BrianW

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Philosophy doesn't interest most people, and isn't all that relevant to most problems outside some fairly specific cases. And the boons to, say, quality of life have no direct and obvious connection to philosophy outside an incredibly hamfisted "Everything is philosophy" idea, so I don't think it's unfair.

Some people just find philosophy fun, and it may have some relevancy in certain academic matters, but that lays outside the realm of what most people care about.

I have always seen Philosophy as somewhat similar to math we haven't found a use for yet. It exists for the time being as useless but becomes important when we finally find a use for it. Philosophy is a study of the nature of our own minds and how that relates to the universe, (at least from my perspective) and Science is a study of the universe using our own minds. If we make art to explain ourselves and do Science to explain our universe, Philosophy is that missing link where we ask questions about ourselves to find out why we explain things. Philosophy may not result in beautiful pieces of art or life-improving appliances, but it does give ourselves an understanding of ourselves in a more fundamental and human way than religions. That is the gift that philosophy bestows upon the world, at least the beginnings of an understanding of the self.

I like that.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Philosophy doesn't interest most people, and isn't all that relevant to most problems outside some fairly specific cases. And the boons to, say, quality of life have no direct and obvious connection to philosophy outside an incredibly hamfisted "Everything is philosophy" idea, so I don't think it's unfair. — MindForged

Most people accept their philosophy in a language that is less academic. Fortunately, it is easier to express philosophy in such diluted means especially through narratives both fiction and fact.

Quality of life is directly related to the knowledge we apply to our life situations and, philosophy being more acceptable to society through its many diverse forms, has proven to be very significant in a very direct way as could be seen from the yoga trends, the healthy nutrition trends, spirituality trends, the many debates on what equality entails, the endless maxims in popular use, etc.

The 'everything is philosophy' idea is somewhat true considering philosophy was developed as a way of investigating reality and acquiring knowledge without uncritical bias. All current fields of knowledge have existed before as aspects of philosophy and it still plays a major part in bridging the gap between professional and layman understanding. That, I think, is one of the points in support of philosophy's relevance.

Very large numbers of people - whole populations - do and believe in stupid things - like electing a self-serving businessman with no discernible skills to high office (I don't want to discuss that particular stupidity here, there's another thread for it.) Large numbers struggle with addiction and various vices - things I'm not immune to myself! - and believe completely fanciful and ridiculous things (for evidence of which look at current popular entertainment). Suicide is epidemic in developed nations. Why, when we have access to so much knowledge and such incredible technology, can life seem so utterly bereft of meaning? I think that's a pretty central question for philosophy.

I think there's something in the way modern Western culture construes reality that is corrosive and dangerous, to the soul and to the planet. We're seeing that writ large in environmental degradation, and on a personal level in the kinds of problems referred to above. Again, philosophy ought to wrestle with why that is, why despite our amazing technology and privileges, such problems keep occuring. That is very much in keeping with the kinds of questions that Socrates would wander about Athens asking.

In fact it's the very absence of such questioning that distinguishes what is taught as philosophy in Western universities. Most of it is intended only to appeal to other professional specialists, hence the proliferation of jargon and meaningless verbiage ('qualia', anyone?) Honorable exceptions include Alain Du Botton, Jules Evans, and Raymond Tallis who have have made careers in philosophy outside the academy. But a great deal of what is taught under the banner of philosophy in the Universities is the emaciated corpse of the grand tradition.

If you widen the scope of "philosophy" and acknowledge that philosophy spawned new specialized fields, and you accept the several fields of knowledge, then fine. Philosophy is still relevant.

If, on the other hand, you restrict "philosophy" to what is studied in departments of philosophy, then no: philosophy is irrelevant except inside a narrow academic ditch.

There really has been a "knowledge explosion". The sciences, the liberal arts, medicine, technology, archeology, history, linguistic studies... etc. have all generated a lot of information (granted, often unorganized, scattered, sometimes questionable information) which when digested adds up to real knowledge.

Philosophy itself is worthwhile the same way Literature is worthwhile: studying it won't make you a philosopher any more than studying literature will make you an author.

As long as wisdom is relevant, philosophy is relevant.

Well, let's see. First, all of human life is based on some assumption or another, so an investigation of these assumptions is useful, in theory. So although we should try to be realistic about how little is likely to be accomplished, I'll vote that it's good that average people such as ourselves make the attempt to examine some of these assumptions.

As far as professional academic philosophy goes, I do honestly believe it's largely a self serving enterprise of very limited use to the public at large. As example, academic philosophers seem thoroughly unable to grasp that nuclear weapons are not "just another single issue", just as if I had a hair trigger loaded gun in my mouth that would not be just another single issue in my life, but the only issue of any importance.

Sure, I may have many other problems. I may be an alcoholic, I may have cancer, I may be unemployed, I may be hopelessly addicted to posting on forums. :smile: But at the moment I stick the loaded gun in my mouth, that becomes the issue I should be addressing, because that becomes a single point of failure which can render all other solutions impossible.

To me, this is a very simple and straightforward test of our rationality, which we routinely fail. Based on that evidence, I conclude that philosophy is of limited use in general, and that most of those doing philosophy for a living are well intentioned frauds.

In my observation, what professional philosophers are good at is not reason, but generating articulate documents and playing the corporate gulag career ladder game. That is, they are good at the philosophy business, and not actual philosophy.

Wisdom is one part of the answer, that is a general knowledge one collects through all its life, mostly not systematically, either by trying and failing, or by believing others who experienced it before.

The other part of the answer is that there is a negative selection acting on knowledge domains that human kind tries to investigate systematically, and present to children and young adults through formal school education. And as soon as something manages to get investigated systematically, it gets removed out of philosophy domain, and it becomes science, either "hard" or "soft".

The difference between the two is that the latter is limited to empirical analysis, collecting data, categorizing it, but without being able to produce the exact mathematical/logical theory which explains collected data in a general and abstract form, and which is able to predict something based on that data.

What that means, is that when one has ambition to describe something generally and abstractly, but has no power to produce exact "hard" scientific theory, one must step back and say "it's just a philosophy", as I did with my 4 essays, or resort to pseudoscience, which is something that no honest person does intentionally.

The proof that this is true, is Isaac Newton's example. He is now considered a "founding father" of hard science, and as such, he considered himself at that time a philosopher, calling the new science he invented "principia mathematica philosophiae naturalis". Because, at that time, noone would go around saying: "I am a scientist, I have no interest in philosophy.", such a sentence at that time would sound really awkward, because the distinction was not yet established.
And by the way, he spent more of his life in things we consider today pseudoscientific researches, than in scientific ones, but he honestly believed in what he was doing, so noone considers him pseudoscientist because of that.

You are doing exactly what I mentioned and thus are, wittingly or not, playing a shell game. You're defining philosophy so broadly that it applies to everything and thus fails to pick anything out non-trivially. This is exactly as stupid as scientism. Things growing out of philosophy does not make those outgrowths philosophy anymore than a child being the same thing as their mother because she birthed them. Both grow out of and distinguish themselves from what came prior and thus the forebears do not get to claim direct credit for what the offspring does once they are a distant memory. Philosophy is not defined as having knowledge or applying it to life, that's an incredibly stupid definition or description of philosophy. Most philosophy is about abstract things, concepts and such, even if they have no direct relevance to how one lives their life.

Why, when we have access to so much knowledge and such incredible technology, can life seem so utterly bereft of meaning? I think that's a pretty central question for philosophy. — Wayfarer

The fact that we have access to so much knowledge may imply philosophy is playing its part accordingly. I think, just like in the past, most people don't know what to do with the information given and are not courageous enough to venture by themselves.

I think there's something in the way modern Western culture construes reality that is corrosive and dangerous, to the soul and to the planet. We're seeing that writ large in environmental degradation, and on a personal level in the kinds of problems referred to above. Again, philosophy ought to wrestle with why that is, why despite our amazing technology and privileges, such problems keep occuring. That is very much in keeping with the kinds of questions that Socrates would wander about Athens asking. — Wayfarer

I agree with this. I believe the problem with modern culture is the prevalence of the 'quick fix' or 'shortcut' mentality. If we have a problem with the environment, we start looking for ways to fix it right then and there. Most people don't consider that it is possible to start something that may take decades, perhaps centuries, of continuous effort just to get things back on track. And, often enough, as soon as the 'quick fix' seems to stall, it is often abandoned and another solution is sought out. In the end, it takes us decades just to realise we're taking the wrong approach towards a lasting solution. By then, most people, especially those with the capacity to work out solutions, have given up because they realise there won't be any significant degree of success during their lifetimes and, therefore, embark on a journey of self-ambition aimed at personal gains. Meanwhile, the problems persist.

In fact it's the very absence of such questioning that distinguishes what is taught as philosophy in Western universities... But a great deal of what is taught under the banner of philosophy in the Universities is the emaciated corpse of the grand tradition. — Wayfarer

From my perspective, modern education approach is aimed at initiating into predominant schools of thought instead of training people how to think for themselves and to eventually determine their own thought paradigms. It is not a failing of philosophy, rather a failure of those who are supposedly philosophers.

If, on the other hand, you restrict "philosophy" to what is studied in departments of philosophy, then no: philosophy is irrelevant except inside a narrow academic ditch. — Bitter Crank

Isn't this restriction an insult to real philosophy? Imagine if any branch of biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics declared itself a separate and unrelated field of study and knowledge from its source. Suppose we now declare genetics to be different from biology, or organic chemistry to be different from chemistry, etc. Or better yet, suppose we declared biology, physics or chemistry to be different from science.
It's the same with philosophy. None of the fields of knowledge spawned and nutured by philosophy can claim to be different and separate from it when the term philosophy itself implies a blanket embrace of them all.

You're defining philosophy so broadly that it applies to everything and thus fails to pick anything out non-trivially. — MindForged

Philosophy is that broad application of knowledge. However, as broad as it is, it converges when related to reality. No matter how diverse the fields of knowledge, the principles of reality remain the same regardless of language, perspective, culture, etc.

The failure to pick anything of significance is a failure of the so-called philosophers. If we study the old greek philosophers we find much that is significant even though their literature doesn't compare to that of modern day in terms of volume. Presently, we seem to have much words to speak with very little meaning.

Philosophy itself is worthwhile the same way Literature is worthwhile: studying it won't make you a philosopher any more than studying literature will make you an author. — Bitter Crank

Modern day education is yet to realise this fragment of truth. Unfortunately, there're too many unwitting victims of the con who're willing to succumb to self-deceit if only for the pride which the title bestows. And some, who understand this, are still unwilling to accept an endeavour that doesn't end in merit which sets them on a pedestal above others. We seem to want our academic merits to have the importance that we ourselves have not, and probably won't, earn.

As long as wisdom is relevant, philosophy is relevant. — Tzeentch

That is the whole truth of it.

One failure of so-called philosophers, myself included, is the inability to realise the domain of practice of our knowledge. We want to save the world, not by initiating one little step after another, but by one giant leap. Unfortuantely, that one giant leap for any individual human means very little for the collective whole.

I believe a true philosopher holds to their own personal ethics/morals regardless of others; they propagate harmony and integrity in their relation with others regardless of whether it is reciprocated; they work diligently for their own little ecosystem in direct contact with them without being thrown off-course due to the larger picture, because they know their place and its significance, etc.
Having perfected the small domain of their influence, whether it's the individual self, one's family, workplace, etc, it becomes possible to project that same diligence to other people and in other areas. That, I believe is the duty of a philosopher.

I believe true philosophers do not seek to solve problems for everyone. They work diligently to show everyone that each individual has the capacity to labour for the greater good out of a sense of personal duty instead of seeking acclaim. It's time we realise that applause from others means little when there's still work to be done and especially when those giving the approval do little themselves.

None of the fields of knowledge spawned and nurtured by philosophy can claim to be different and separate from it when the term philosophy itself implies a blanket embrace of them all. — BrianW

Philosophy used in that way becomes much too large a blanket to be meaningful. In the same way "literature" meaning everything that had been written would be too large a term to have much value. Some writing amounts to mere "printed matter" and some writing is sublime. Some biologists have written eloquently, but we don't usually call it "literature" along with Milton and Bukowski. (We might in the future call some science writing literature; Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy (now called clinical depression) written in 1621 is a standard of 17th Century English Literature. 400 years is probably long enough to decide. (I read some of it 50 some years ago; I can't remember enough to say whether it was good or not. At the time I was too stupid to tell shit from shinola.)

We could say, "Philosophers working at CERN discovered the Higgs Boson; other philosophers working at the Harvard Business School have devised new formulae for predicting the amount of warehouse space needed by Amazon fulfillment centers; still other researchers at Pfizer have discovered a novel antibiotic." but we don't, because nobody thinks of CERN, HBS, or Pfizer as philosophical enterprises.

And people who think of themselves as "philosophers" do not darken the doorways at CERN, HBS, or Pfizer often enough to be unremarkable.

My impression of people who are fascinated with "academic philosophy" is that many of them would do well to shelve their books for a while and do more physically engaging work, participate in more emotionally engaging relationships, and actually do some original "philosophy" in the field. Literally, go out into a field, or a back yard, or a park--somewhere--and perform an extremely close analysis of what exactly is there. Play field biologist/philosopher for a while. Or buy some chemicals and see if they can blow up something (something small). Get real, in other words.

If Wikipedia were a living entity, it would tell you that philosophy is very important. And the time-quantifier "today" means nothing.

See:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4722/all-topics-converge-to-philosophy

Philosophy used in that way becomes much too large a blanket to be meaningful. — Bitter Crank

This may also be said of science. It's not that by interacting philosophically we should ignore the many diverse aspects, but we should also realise that the individual specifics without the larger unifying picture is the definition of lost.

So far, in this forum, I've seen people relegate philosophy to a kind of shell without any substance while at the same time commending the significance of domains of knowledge such as science and mathematics. What vexes me is that they fail to see how they are a part of philosophy. Without the larger picture which philosophy gives, science becomes too materialistic and fails to reveal meaning in the activities observed in reality. And mathematics becomes a play of numbers without any directivity. Because philosophy is a bigger picture than the other branches of study, it is best suited to act as a control measure for them. There may be a great degree of specialisation of knowledge but we need philosophy to mediate between those many seemingly diverse branches e.g. to remind us in scientific endeavours that ethics is important and an integral part of all undertakings, to remind us in mathematics that numbers have a relation to nature and to reality and therefore there is a way to interact with them and that they are a part of us.

Purely analytical practices, because they are based on comparative processes, have a tendency to be too focused in the mechanics thus alienating the subjects/objects. Because of this, one of the popular notions of scientists is that of cold and detached humans. I believe, if integrating practices (based on associative processes) are given as much attention as their counterparts, then, there's a likelihood of greater balance/harmony than is currently the case.

Philosophy can have its relevance without diminishing that of others.

believe the problem with modern culture is the prevalence of the 'quick fix' or 'shortcut' mentality. If we have a problem with the environment, we start looking for ways to fix it right then and there. Most people don't consider that it is possible to start something that may take decades, perhaps centuries, of continuous effort just to get things back on track. And, often enough, as soon as the 'quick fix' seems to stall, it is often abandoned and another solution is sought out. In the end, it takes us decades just to realise we're taking the wrong approach towards a lasting solution. By then, most people, especially those with the capacity to work out solutions, have given up because they realise there won't be any significant degree of success during their lifetimes and, therefore, embark on a journey of self-ambition aimed at personal gains. — BrianW

Have you checked out this? Shaw had a wild idea that what mankind needed most was an extension of its lifespan, precisely so people could care enough to fix big problems. 'I guess I'll spend a century on getting this in order to better enjoy the next four centuries.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_Methuselah

. Because philosophy is a bigger picture than the other branches of study, it is best suited to act as a control measure for them. There may be a great degree of specialisation of knowledge but we need philosophy to mediate between those many seemingly diverse branches e.g. to remind us in scientific endeavours that ethics is important and an integral part of all undertakings, to remind us in mathematics that numbers have a relation to nature and to reality and therefore there is a way to interact with them and that they are a part of us. — BrianW

I agree with this role for philosophy. It organizes everything else. On an individual level it allows me to prioritize and synthesize. It helps me feel at home in the world. It helps me find an ought-to-be that I can strive toward or already enjoy as having partially attained. It 'places' natural science in the context of the 'lifeworld.' Maybe it teaches me a playful open-mindedness that also knows how to get serious and talk in the ordinary way to get the ordinary work done.

[url=http://]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_Methuselah[/url] — sign

This has quite captured my imagination,

Shaw also advocates what he calls homeopathy as a pedagogical method, arguing that society "can only be lamed and enslaved by" education. Shaw's "homeopathic" educational method consisted of lying to students, until the students were able to see through the lies and argue with the teachers.

I wish a part of my education consisted of this. It sounds fun and promising, in a way. However, I can't imagine what would happen to those who don't realise the lies.

What vexes me is that they fail to see how they are a part of philosophy. Without the larger picture which philosophy gives, science becomes too materialistic and fails to reveal meaning in the activities observed in reality. — BrianW

I hear you saying that when Philosophy started budding science (quite some time back) the big picture facility it bequeathed to science got lost along the way. So one sees all these extraordinarily narrow projects going on in science, with no overall picture of what it amounts to. Like, genetics and global ecology connect, just as chemistry and botany, biology and physics, molecules and men all connect in meaningfully good and harmful ways -- if one will see it.

Yes? No?

I don't see professional philosophers being of much help here, because science did bud off quite a while back (several hundred years) and has since developed it's own body of knowledge which, on average, a philosopher-specialist probably doesn't have time to gain in one lifetime.

So it would seem that the sciences will have to import big-picture capacity from philosophy to make overall sense of what they are all up to. (And they should, because they are messing around with very basic, root-level stuff, as well as very high level phenomena.) How should they go about that?