I think a lot of it is bloviating for sure. I think the foundations for the philosophy of science are probably pretty important. Good epistemology can't be overrated.

For me philosophy is just an intrinsically compelling activity, I've never concerned myself with its "value" or "importance".

As in all areas of human thought, there is a lot of excess, a lot of unnecessary complication and obfuscation. You also have to allow for some pretension and delusion. But none of that invalidates the effort to figure out how we relate to the world we inhabit, the worlds we invent and the worlds we build.

I enjoyed the reference to the "scriptures" of Hegel.

But I tend to doubt that people find philosophy to be idle merely because you find in it contradictory positions. You can find that to be the case in law, medicine, engineering, sociology, psychology; most any human endeavor in which expertise is claimed, in fact.

They may be more inclined to find it to be idle because much of it has no bearing on how we live. That wasn't always the case, and isn't entirely the case now, but I think that would be a fairly common belief.

Philosophy in the general sense can be. Philosophy as a discussion of rigorous proofs, logic, and proposals is not. Since we are in online forums open to the public, many people approach philosophy as opinions, ways of life, or even religion. Get in a conversation with a good philosopher though and they'll push you into clearly defining your terms, demonstrating your logical steps, and requiring your conclusion to be sound.

Is philosophy just idle talk? Philosophy in the general sense can be. Philosophy as a discussion of rigorous proofs, logic, and proposals is not — Philosophim

Otoh, positivist and analytic approaches to philosophy almost killed it by cutting off its revelance to how people live and what they care about. Fortunately, in recent years the wall between analytic and continental has been eroding.

As pointed out, depends if you mean 'every day philosophy' which is certainly not idle - it is the basis on whcih people act, day-to-day. But it is certainly imprecise, largely flies in the face of facts, and ultimately isn't going to 'progress' the person without some further investigation into their 'philosophy'.

Academic philosophy? 50/50. Philosophy Twitter is a society of PhDs who are absolutely f-ing morons and can't construct a simple sentence to get across an idea that they already know is bunk.

But if you speak to faculties and policy gurus who are trained in philosophy, it's so bloody interesting its hard to take it as anythign but fundamentally important (though, that's an emotional response lol).

It's quite possible for philosophy to address how people live and what they care about without having recourse to the kind of obscurity, and sometimes even esotericism, analytic philosophy and OLP were and are intended to expose and avoid. But in any case their therapeutic value applies primarily to metaphysics and epistemology.

It's quite possible for philosophy to address how people live and what they care about without having recourse to the kind of obscurity, and sometimes even esotericism, analytic philosophy and OLP were and are intended to expose and avoid. — Ciceronianus

God forbid philosophy should be ‘obscurantist’ or ‘esoteric’ (code words for ‘I have no idea what they’re talking about’). I’m not denying it is possible to locate writers here and there who choose to be deliberately obscurantist or esoteric, but mostly these accusations are leveled against philosophers whose work I am very familiar with and understand well, and I see the difficulty not in the choice of writing style of the philosopher but in the unpreparedness of the accuser to grasp the radically new and difficult concepts embedded in the text. I associate analytic philosophy less with a clear and accessible style of writing than with an attachment to a certain set of metaphysical presuppositions (for a long time, they were just bookends to Hume and Kant) that they have lately been in the process of abandoning , leading to the fading of the boundary between analytic and continental in terms of style of language and approach. Joseph Rouse and Lee Braver are examples of contemporary philosophers who have no trouble moving back and forth between the two cultures.

Joseph Rouse and Lee Braver are examples of contemporary philosophers who have no trouble moving back and forth between the two cultures. — Joshs

Indeed. I've found Braver accessible. He is also an excellent communicator in lectures and interviews.

I'm afraid I find philosophy very difficult and time consuming and at my age, with many other priorities, I am unlikely to acquire a useful reading of most thinkers, especially those who formulate more radical approaches. But I am keen to survey some of the directions and themes taken up.

Those aspects of analytic philosophy that intersect mathematics, like set theory, are certainly more than idle chatter. And philosophies of ethics and law certainly are relevant. But arguments over what the great philosophers of the past meant seems more like speculative nostalgia than substance. As for the discussions on TPF , well, its a fun place to engage in prattle.

I confess I got carried away somewhat.

I was trying to respond to your claim that analytic philosophy somehow nearly killed philosophy by "cutting off its relevance to how people live and what they care about." I don't think it did nor that it could do so, because I think it and OLP primarily address the dissolution of problems which most people don't care about and have nothing to do with how they live, but have become typical philosophical problems. Which is to say metaphysical and epistemological problems peculiar to philosophers like those addressed by such as Ryle and Austin. They're valuable in that respect, and I think the clarity, precision and close analysis used in that task have value generally.

I know that Marcuse thought as it seems you do, but I think he overreacted and didn't understand the focus of analytic philosophy and OLP. I view them as concerned primarily with method.

I think philosophy starting becoming irrelevant to how we live and the problems of living long before analytic philosophy and OLP arose. I don't think that Descartes or Kant, to name a few, have much to say of any relevance to how we live or should live.

As for contemporary philosophers who address matters of concern in living our lives, I'd mention Martha Nussbaum and Susan Haack as among them. The former has an affinity for Stoicism and other ancient schools, and the latter is a pragmatist, which no doubt explains why I refer to them.

I say no it's not just idle talk, but I think life is so full, there is room for objective, absolute, eternal truth. Philosophy, for me, involves the pursuit of that. It leads to true discovery of what is, was and will be. Which I find enjoyable, even if I'm not sure I discovered any such things yet.

But if you really thought there was no absolute in the picture, it's just idle talk. If you still enjoyed it like a game, fine, but playing a game is close to idleness.

Without any absolutes, the playing field is leveled by the playing. Philosophy's frustrations and discipline would not be worth it to me anymore. (But then, from what I can tell, even if all was just playing, idle banter when playing with words, we would have an absolute idleness, which calls me back in toward the view that philosophy is truth and wisdom and deals in absolutes and not simply idleness).

I worry about us for not proudly remembering philosophy is art, and for clinging steadfastly to the theories of the great philosophers as if they present Truth, rather than re-present art; those who jump to proclaim after Socrates that we cannot know, and that the rest of philosophy is verbal masturbation; those same who then qualify their claim with “yes, but So and so’s ontology transcends that and somehow arrives at Truth.” How can one, through introspection, arrive at any place transcendent? To paint a picture, in introspection you are entering the cave, a place riddled with shadows, making your way deeper into the darkest recesses, and always coming up with, what? If not more shadows, no matter how profoundly intuitive, no matter how reasonable, dazzling or convincing. How do you get from a place of shadows, anything but shadows? We say it is meaning we are after, but how, when it is constructed only out of these shadows and only represented, cast back upon the wall as meaning, and settled upon by spectators as meaning only after a final, sometimes imperceptible, but nevertheless always necessary leap, commonly known to us as belief? How do you get from the inside world of shadow paintings to the outside world of Reality by delving deeper into the inside? That is what, from my read, Plato did, followed by Descartes, more obviously, but also what even the greats in Metaphysics like Kant, Hegel and Heidegger have done. Irrespective of the beauty, hard work, complexity, or even usefulness of their art, it is just a re-presenting, a novel bricolage of the shadow paintings already cast upon the wall. Plato remained true to his mentor in one respect: you have to leave the cave to see Truth, never mind he spent the rest of his life glorifying intro-spection and reason, pretending these are not shadows but remnants of a superior world. And, moreover, Truth is not the object that you see “out there” outside the cave—it’s too late, if your focus out there is the object, the object's “Truth” is already displaced by the shadow paintings still reflecting upon your vision, a thing, try as you might, you cannot erase. Truth is the “activity” (of) see-ing; it is the Being see-ing and aware-ing the see-ing without concern for shadows. It is not introspection. To access Truth, one must, even ever so briefly, “transcend” the cave of knowing, abiding only in be-ing. And as for our pursuit of metaphysics and other philosophy, why should there be shame in recognizing that though it is art, it is beautiful and useful, a thing out of which History has similarly constructed science and culture? We do philosophy because that is essentially all that we do, and no matter what we call it, it is what we cant stop doing: constructing meaning out of Signifiers stored in the cave, and settling upon it, from time to time, and place to place, as though it were true, and sometimes even, as though it were Truth.

this is great fodder for the OP

Don't forget paragraphs. Text slabs are hard to read.

I think that there are definitely more parts of philosophy that have more practical value than others. For example, Epistemology, philosophy of science, Ethics, Political Philosophy, etc. would all be much more pragmatic and should continue to be studied.

However that's not to say that the other branches are not important at all. If we want to search for truth, then we can never discount anything.

Philosophy of mind, metaphysics, etc. can all be very useful and help us search for truth.

But no, philosophy in general is no mindless babble, since it is what got us stuff like science. And the claim that philosophy is mindless babble is also philosophy. There's no way around.

Sounds like more of a gay science, than just an art. Idle "Truth" talk being one component of the science, or maybe a shading tone of brown as you re-paint the old cave metaphor for artistic purposes.

Of course logicians would object, that logic is independent of time, an eternal static thing so to speak. — Pez

The Temporal logicians wouldn't object. There are tons of different non-classic logics out there.
It is sunny. (It was true this morning.)
It is sunny. (It is not true a few hours later.)

brown as you re-paint the old cave metaphor for artistic purposes. — Fire Ologist

A richly textured one, at that.

God's teeth. Let's not sully art by claiming philosophers are artists.

Let's not sully art by claiming philosophers are artists. — Ciceronianus

There's a lot of pretty bad art out there and it kind of sullies itself IMO.

That said, depending upon one's definition of art, i would think that some of the works of great philosophical imagination (even if you hold they are wrongheaded) count as artistic responses, something like poetry.

Philosophy Twitter — AmadeusD

Is there such a thing?

Quite a different approach to logic, though, we find in the scriptures of Friedrich Hegel. He maintained, that contradictions are a vital prerequisite of all progress. The german word “aufheben” can have a dual meaning: to save and to abolish. In his expression “synthesis” it is just that, the combination of two mutually excluding ideas into one, encompassing both. — Pez

Hegel applied this principle to human mind, in his famous work "Phenomenology of Spirits" for describing and understanding the workings of human consciousness. Marx took over the idea applying the principle into the existence of material and the operational principle for the societies, providing the ideological foundation for the extreme materialism and communism.

If we apply Hegel's idea to philosophy at large, it is not idle talk at all but the necessary ingredient for a dynamic development of ideas. — Pez

Agreed. :up: :fire:

Certain philosophies do seem to have less than tangible/measurable goals than others, yes.

Philosophy of law is pretty clear, to know Justice as intimately as a man knows a woman. Philosophy of mind or religion is naturally a bit more abstract and open to interpretation. I'd say so, at least.

You can lead to a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Everything is open to interpretation. Solipsism for example, I would call a non-philosophy and more of what should be a clinically recognized mental illness, however it follows all (if not most of) the rules and seems to be derived of a valid, fundamental question (what is real, what isn't, how can we be sure, etc.).

It seems to be more a means to an end not an end itself. Or something.

It creates conceptual "bricks", that do have substance, though perhaps little, that someone is supposed to use to perhaps build a house or bridge to a desired location that would have otherwise not been possible or of greater difficulty than without. Now, you can build a cheap, shabby, and even dangerous house or bridge if the bricks are not placed in ideal order by someone who doesn't know what they're doing. Or, you could feel high and mighty about being able to seemingly defeat any opinion you don't agree with by talking around it with fanciful magniloquence that seems to add up perfectly, if not just in one's own mind, and leave the person your speaking to dumbfounded to the point they forgot what they were doing. To each their own. Some are builders. Some are on a personal or selfless quest for knowledge. And surely, of course, some do indeed just like to hear themself talk. Guilty as charged. :smile:

I'd be interested to know what those may be. But I think it takes more than imagination to create a work of art.

Right on, brother! Great philosophical works have their own aesthetic, just like mathematics does, but it doesn't follow that the great works will necessarily be to everyone's taste, just as it doesn't follow with great works of art.

I'd be interested to know what those may be. But I think it takes more than imagination to create a work of art. — Ciceronianus

Likewise it takes more than mere imagination to create great works of philosophy.

Likewise it takes more than mere imagination to create great works of philosophy. — Janus

Generally agree. But for sake of debate (it's own point): "You [can't help but] always admire (be fascinated with) what you really don't understand." - Blaise Pascal

Rings true, no?

Solipsism for example, I would call a non-philosophy and more of what should be a clinically recognized mental illness — Outlander

On that note, might as well consider any type of anti-realism about observable things a mental illness. Since anti-realism about observable things works under the premise that the mind is unreliable, might as well make the practice of philosophy itself a mental illness.
Not that I would disagree. When was the last time we had a truly happy philosopher?

Yes, I think humans are generally fascinated with the unknown, even the unknowable—a space is left for the imagination to speculate, a creative activity. Pays not to take such speculation too seriously, though, I think, or else become a believer in some form of Gnosticism. The latter would be a departure from empirical/ rational criteria for belief, though. Empirical/ rational criteria are shared, intuition not so much.