The problem with philosophy

[AGENT J]

......is that the practitioners spend centuries discussing it—only to come to the conclusion that there is no conclusion. What’s the point?

“The fundamental problem of philosophy is whether doing it has any point, since if it does not have any point, there is no reason to do it. It is suggested that the intrinsic point of doing philosophy is to establish a rational consensus about what the answers to its main questions are. But it seems that this cannot be accomplished because philosophical arguments are bound to be inconclusive. Still, philosophical research generates an increasing number of finer grained distinctions in terms of which we try to conceptualize reality, and this is a sort of progress. But if, as is likely, our arguments do not suffice to decide between these alternatives, our personalities might slip in to do so. Our philosophy will then express our personality. This could provide philosophy with a point for us. If some of our conclusions have practical import, philosophy could have the further point of giving us something by which we can live.”

The Fundamental Problem of Philosophy: Its Point | Journal of Practical Ethics

The Journal of Practical Ethics is an open access journal in moral and political philosophy (and related areas), published by the Oxford Uehiro Center for Practical Ethics, located at the University of Oxford.

www.jpe.ox.ac.uk

theres ZERO problem with philosophy

Philosophy is awesome and has benefited man kind for a very long time

the probelm is with people who dont understand philosophy, pseudo-intellectuals that think all philosophy is fact even philosophy that goes against current facts, definitions etc

we have had a few here over the years and while they were very entertaining because of their false sense of superiority they sure were dumb

 

[ataraxia]

......is that the practitioners spend centuries discussing it—only to come to the conclusion that there is no conclusion. What’s the point?

“The fundamental problem of philosophy is whether doing it has any point, since if it does not have any point, there is no reason to do it. It is suggested that the intrinsic point of doing philosophy is to establish a rational consensus about what the answers to its main questions are. But it seems that this cannot be accomplished because philosophical arguments are bound to be inconclusive. Still, philosophical research generates an increasing number of finer grained distinctions in terms of which we try to conceptualize reality, and this is a sort of progress. But if, as is likely, our arguments do not suffice to decide between these alternatives, our personalities might slip in to do so. Our philosophy will then express our personality. This could provide philosophy with a point for us. If some of our conclusions have practical import, philosophy could have the further point of giving us something by which we can live.”

The Fundamental Problem of Philosophy: Its Point | Journal of Practical Ethics

The Journal of Practical Ethics is an open access journal in moral and political philosophy (and related areas), published by the Oxford Uehiro Center for Practical Ethics, located at the University of Oxford.

www.jpe.ox.ac.uk

I don’t think that’s fair. For example, I was recently reading some of the ancient stoics like Seneca and Marcus Aurelius. They provide a certain framework for seeing and acting in the world which can be very helpful and therapeutic. It’s not that it’s right or wrong. You can either choose to see the world and act in it that way or not.

Reading Nietzsche or John Dewey or Camus has been the same for me. Reading epistemology and philosophy of science has helped me think about the importance, and limitations of, science. I have sometimes read annd been inspired by Nietzsche when making important career decisions. Reading Dewey has helped me navigate between rigid dogmatism and irresponsible relativism in knowledge claims. This has been helpful even in concrete issues like climate change claims or the latest vaccination policies. Dewey has also helped me understand why democracy, even despite all its faults and frustrating limitations, may be the best approach to a functional society.

Reading philosophy has also helped me with issues of how to think about religion and the existence of God, and this relationship to scientific claims. These insughts are not necessarily right or wrong. But they are very helpful to think about.

“Right or wrong” may not be the right way to think about philosophy, as much as helpful or not helpful. In my life, I have learned all sorts of very helpful, if not downright therapeutic, things by reading philosophy. I think it helps me be a better person.

 

[soylentgreen]

I can't remember the exact question, but in response to a Philosophy class question that asked 'Why' I got a passing grade by answering 'why not'.

Such classes are the ones where no one fails. A passing grade is that you attended. nothing more. If you were a few years younger you probably would have got a nice certificate and a lollipop as well.

 

[soylentgreen]

A perfect philosophical statement. Well done! Wide sweeping, all embracing but devoid of any contribution to the advancement of knowledge or human understanding. If you tripped over a kerb stone you would not require philosophical musing to convince you that the bruises were factual.

What a complete load of crap. Do you really think someone is wasting time considering such a mundane fact as tripping over a stone. More the consideration would be to ask why do you fall down when tripping. Such questions lead to answers like gravity instead of answers like because godidit.

 

[soylentgreen]

Higher sophistry relies to much on false equivalences and metaphores stretched beyond breaking point.

You're pointing to the inept attempts by members here or actual philosophy done by those who study the subject?

 

[soylentgreen]

“The fundamental problem of philosophy is whether doing it has any point, since if it does not have any point, there is no reason to do it.

To have a reason to do something is the point of doing something. To point out there is no reason for doing something then you do not need a point to achieve something.

So it is not a fundamental problem of philosophy that you cannot proscribe a reason or a point. In fact it is the very basis of philosophy to find a reason to have a point.

The complete irony here is that the very question you ask is one always asked by philosophers.

 

[Sweden]

You're pointing to the inept attempts by members here or actual philosophy done by those who study the subject?

Both. Though those in academe are most to blame.

 

[Visbek]

......is that the practitioners spend centuries discussing it—only to come to the conclusion that there is no conclusion. What’s the point?

First of all, that's an egregiously false claim. Philosophers consistently draw definite conclusions about their claims. If disagreement among practitioners is sufficient to render a discipline pointless, then almost every discipline should be classified as equally "pointless."

Second, the "point" of philosophy varies from one philosophical subdiscipline to the next, and from one philosopher to the next. Plato was trying to steer Athens into what he thought was a more just society. Kong Fuzi and Mencius did the same for ancient China. Aristotle articulated critical Western concepts such as the scientific method, the law of non-contradiction, the basics of Western logic, as well as writing extensively about ethics and politics. Augustine tried to explain the status of evil within the context of Christianity. Descartes tried to explain how the mind works. Kant tried to establish a rational foundation for knowledge. The list goes on.

Third, at least one field -- one the journal you cited addresses directly, we should note -- has very practical applications: Ethics. If you believe it's "pointless" to try and distinguish right from wrong, then I don't think the problem lies in philosophy....

Fourth, at least one other field has been directly influenced by philosophy: Political philosophy. All that stuff in the Constitution that we talk about all the time? Did that appear out of thin air? Nope, most of it came from Enlightenment philosophers (who, in turn, were almost certainly reinterpreting Native American political philosophies). Equality, natural rights, the value of life, the proper role of government, or government as a constantly growing and overreaching entity, relationship between citizen and state, federalism... Yep, all of that and more is coming from philosophy.

Fifth, at least one more field has been directly influenced by philosophy: Information science. Yep. All those chips in your computer, which you rely on to get stuff done? That's actually all using logic gates. How about AI? Yep, figuring out the meaning of "intelligence" and "consciousness" are philosophical tasks, albeit these days shared with cognitive science (which in itself is a blend of philosophy, psychology and neurology).

I could go on, but... You should probably get the point by now.

“The fundamental problem of philosophy is whether doing it has any point..."

Is this a joke?

You're citing an article from a journal that openly states:

Our vision is to build an open access journal that will bring the best work in philosophy to bear on pressing issues of public, political or interdisciplinary interest. We believe that the ideas and arguments of many moral and political philosophers are of significant relevance to problems in contemporary life. Not only are these arguments of interest to a wide general public, but they are of relevance to many other academics, political and social leaders.

Does that sound "pointless" to you? Does that sound like the philosophers editing this journal are incapable of deriving conclusions?

And of course, it's rather hilarious that the author winds up using the tools of philosophy in order to draw concrete conclusions about philosophy... despite his saying that philosophy "can't draw conclusions." His own publications depend on his ability to draw definite conclusions. He does pay lip service to his contradictions, but yeah, it's not terribly convincing. It is mildly amusing, though....

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

How do you know that the sky is blue? Using only science, how do you know the sky is blue?

Science.

As white light passes through our atmosphere, tiny air molecules cause it to 'scatter'. The scattering caused by these tiny air molecules (known as Rayleigh scattering) increases as the wavelength of light decreases. Violet and blue light have the shortest wavelengths and red light has the longest.

Now before you go into the stupid question if we all see the same colors; it depends on the individual eye. But science explains that as well. You can learn about it here: https://www.aao.org/eye-health/tips-prevention/how-humans-see-in-color

If you really want to know what other people see you need to ask them. Or do research to determine what they see. A good place for you to start is by examining the cone cells of the eye.

Sitting around talking about it without science will get you nowhere. But it is a fun thing to do while stoned.

 

[mrjurrs]

Such classes are the ones where no one fails. A passing grade is that you attended. nothing more. If you were a few years younger you probably would have got a nice certificate and a lollipop as well.

Not true. The question was badly written by the professor and a number of people generated the same response.

 

[reinaert]

Science.

As white light passes through our atmosphere, tiny air molecules cause it to 'scatter'. The scattering caused by these tiny air molecules (known as Rayleigh scattering) increases as the wavelength of light decreases. Violet and blue light have the shortest wavelengths and red light has the longest.

Now before you go into the stupid question if we all see the same colors; it depends on the individual eye. But science explains that as well. You can learn about it here: https://www.aao.org/eye-health/tips-prevention/how-humans-see-in-color

If you really want to know what other people see you need to ask them. Or do research to determine what they see. A good place for you to start is by examining the cone cells of the eye.

Sitting around talking about it without science will get you nowhere. But it is a fun thing to do while stoned.

This ignores qualia. The scientific method is certainly one of the best tools ever developed, but it cannot address qualia.

 

[watsup]

This ignores qualia. The scientific method is certainly one of the best tools ever developed, but it cannot address qualia.

What is qualia?

 

[soylentgreen]

Both. Though those in academe are most to blame.

Not at all. Those in academe are the ones who know how to debate. While of the ones who frequent this site many could not debate their way out of a paper bag.

 

[soylentgreen]

Not true. The question was badly written by the professor and a number of people generated the same response.

So whose the fool here. Those giving the lesson or those who sat through it.

 

[NolanVoyd]

What facts or conclusions has philosphy come up with over the centuries?

The entire modern world, traces back to enlightenment philosophers.

Enlightenment: a European intellectual movement of the late 17th and 18th centuries emphasizing reason and individualism rather than tradition. It was heavily influenced by 17th-century philosophers such as Descartes, Locke, and Newton, and its prominent exponents include Kant, Goethe, Voltaire, Rousseau, and Adam Smith.

There would be no US constitution without enlightenment philosophers, no capitalism, etc.

 

[Sweden]

Not at all. Those in academe are the ones who know how to debate. While of the ones who frequent this site many could not debate their way out of a paper bag.

What's so bad about being in a paper bag? I find it quite comfortable and can debate with myself whenever I like.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

This ignores qualia. The scientific method is certainly one of the best tools ever developed, but it cannot address qualia.

Are you suggesting that discussing the subjective is anything more than subjective? Also, science does address subjectiveness. Things have moved on. Believing in philosophy is regressive to reality.

 

[reinaert]

Are you suggesting that discussing the subjective is anything more than subjective? Also, science does address subjectiveness. Things have moved on. Believing in philosophy is regressive to reality.

No. I am stating that qualia are experienced but that science - especially the way you use the term as a catch-all - cannot elucidate why, how, if, or where.

Your answer, nonetheless, suggests perhaps that you are only just introduced to the problem of qualia, its relevance to the mind/body debate, and why philosophy isn't going anywhere.

On a broader note, the scientific method - a nearly peerless human achievement - is a facet and function of philosophy assumptions about ontology (in its limited sense of a where experience is seated and how it is accessed) and the rules of reality.

 

[reinaert]

What is qualia?

What are qualia, fwiw.

Here are the famous examples: the feeling of perceiving pain, the sensing of the blueness of the sky, the tasting of the unique flavor of chocolate.

Despite what some might assert, these are not mere subjectivity. How do we know this? The short answer, and for our purposes it has to be the short answer, subjectivity itself is not a certain category, but rather a philosophical kind of position-taking. And one which is communicable. What that means is that assumption of a seated, centered self (which is the result of Platonic-Christian theology) is a philosophical and metaphysical guess about the allegedly unitary, contained nature of an uneasy to define but existential, phenomenal experienced thing, self, or me-ness. Self as subject is something most people experience, but this is not strictly subjective, because it can be communicated without fatal error, and recognized without confusion. There are entire schools of thought (philosophy) that attempt to address these problems of sentience and memory, mind and other: like phenomenology, as but one example.

Science, the method, is also itself a school of thought (philosophy) about how to investigate , discern, test and crucially remember and communicate models of perceived experience.

 

[spud_meister]

Science.

As white light passes through our atmosphere, tiny air molecules cause it to 'scatter'. The scattering caused by these tiny air molecules (known as Rayleigh scattering) increases as the wavelength of light decreases. Violet and blue light have the shortest wavelengths and red light has the longest.

Now before you go into the stupid question if we all see the same colors; it depends on the individual eye. But science explains that as well. You can learn about it here: https://www.aao.org/eye-health/tips-prevention/how-humans-see-in-color

If you really want to know what other people see you need to ask them. Or do research to determine what they see. A good place for you to start is by examining the cone cells of the eye.

Sitting around talking about it without science will get you nowhere. But it is a fun thing to do while stoned.

No, science tell us light waves scatter through the atmosphere and that ~450nm waves predominate at around ground level. Blue and sky are not scientific concepts. You need a conceptual framework, a philosophy, to tell you that ~450nm light is blue, and that all the shades the sky can be unclouded are still blue. You need a conceptual framework to define the sky, as the portion of the atmosphere above you, and exclude the atmosphere around and below you from the idea of sky.

Science is meaningless without a conceptual framework in which to operate. Science only began to flourish when causal, rational and materialist philosophies began to dominate over more magical, irrational and/or religious ones.

 

[Ambig]

Not at all. Those in academe are the ones who know how to debate. While of the ones who frequent this site many could not debate their way out of a paper bag.

To be fair, I'm sure there are many academic philosophers who also couldn't debate their way out of a paper bag.

I think the best debaters are the honest debaters.

 

[ralfy]

What facts or conclusions has philosphy come up with over the centuries?

Which one?

 

[Visbek]

What is qualia?

"Qualia" is shorthand for "qualitative experiences."

The sensation of pain is one type of qualia.

The subjective experience of perceiving a blue object is another type of qualia.

The experience of tasting sweet or sour or spicy are other examples of qualia.

It's isn't about which rods are activated in your retina when you see a blue object, or, which neurons fire when you taste sriracha. It's about how the brain experiences those sensory perceptions.

It's a key component of human consciousness, and as noted, scientists are still incapable of explaining how consciousness works at all.

Similarly, science is incapable of defining personhood, or identity, or the border between life and non-life, or the basis of human rights, the definition of art, how categories work, the basis for the justification of beliefs, or the nature of mathematics, and lots of other topics. At best, they merely take for granted their own assumptions, and largely sweep any concerns about them under the rug.

 

[mrjurrs]

So whose the fool here. Those giving the lesson or those who sat through it.

Or the person who thought it was a lesson when I said it was an assessment question?

 

[soylentgreen]

What's so bad about being in a paper bag? I find it quite comfortable and can debate with myself whenever I like.

Thank you for the fine example of why we should not judge philosophy by the content of your replies.