Philosophy - A "real" subject??

Love

One of my friends recently told me that he didn't consider Philosophy a "real" subject, that it was just "a load of stupid pointless theories that can't be proven" and that he didn't believe it merited being a university level subject.

I disagree completely, but I was wondering what other people thought about this. I would be interested in hearing your opinions, and why you think this.

MrJoeSoap

What constitutes "a real subject"?

Ask your friend this and when they begin to philosophize, sting them.

nesf

Yes because ethics, for example, is not worth studying....

Love

A real subject: something that is worth studying, something that would merit a university level course being taught in it

Dades

No-one can say a subject isn't real.

Are you sure his point wasn't that it wasn't "real" in that you won't get a job as a philosopher afterwards? That's for sure.

Love

No, that wasn't what he meant, I asked him that already. I know there's a much higher unemployment rate for Philosophy graduates... but that wasn't what he meant. I already explained what he meant by a "real" subject I think...

Playboy

Please enlighten us as to what your friend studies or does for a living and why he is qualified to make such an idiotic remark. He more than likely has never studied any philosophy and has no idea what contribution philosophy has made to everyones lives.

Catsmokinpot

does this person actually understand what the term philosophy means?:rolleyes:

I'd pay less attention to your friend

simu

OK, your friend is not a member here afaik and unless he's going to turn up to elaborate his thoughts, I don't see this thread going anywhere worthwhile.

What do you want, Love? A defense of philosophy as a third-level subject? You say you have your own thoughts on the topic - why not share them?

Love

He is a member actually, he just doesn't use boards much and I was wondering if anyone else shared his opinions and why. Or if they disagreed and why.

Dave3x

Philosphy has given birth to, or advanced: Science, ethics, reasoning, logic, mathematics, and too many others to list. Modern philosphy at 3rd level (in Trinity at least) has aspects of philosphical history (Plato and all that), which may not be considered paticularly useful. Yet it also seeks to answer questions that are very relevant today- what is the 'best' form of government? What is Social Justice? Is liberty more important than well-being?

There are other examples, but perhaps it may help to think of Philosophy as being related to science, but without restraining itself to those things which can only be measured or deduced by expeimentation and mathematics (though there are aspects of the subject that don't have anything at all scientific about them....).

Hmmm....I wonder if any of that is coherent at all....

DadaKopf

Seems to me your friend thinks the sectarianisation of knowledge as a consequence of the Enlightenment is a good thing. I think it's a very, very bad thing. The flipside of what Dave3x just said is that the purpose of philosophy, now, is to give coherence to knowledge that has been atomised by rationalist investigation and, more broadly, the cultural context of Western capitalism.

Personally, I think denying a role for philosophy is the same as embracing ignorance.

nesf

DadaKopf wrote:

Seems to me your friend thinks the sectarianisation of knowledge as a consequence of the Enlightenment is a good thing. I think it's a very, very bad thing.

I agree. Though in recent times there has been a movement towards unity. The sciences are beginning to become more coherent with each other, for example, and more of science is being discussed from ethical and other viewpoints.

DadaKopf wrote:

The flipside of what Dave3x just said is that the purpose of philosophy, now, is to give coherence to knowledge that has been atomised by rationalist investigation and, more broadly, the cultural context of Western capitalism.

And to investigate areas that are not covered by rationalist investigation.

DadaKopf wrote:

Personally, I think denying a role for philosophy is the same as embracing ignorance.

Or at least a big step on the road to such. I would not say that philosophy on it's own seperates us from ignorance but it definitely is part of what does.

Sand

Yet it also seeks to answer questions that are very relevant today- what is the 'best' form of government? What is Social Justice? Is liberty more important than well-being?

IMO, It asks and answers questions of little or no relevance, often trapped in a virtuous circle of self reference. Meanwhile, the world keeps turning. What the OPs original post refers to (imo) is that as a subject, it is no more enlightening than say tossing out a hot topic in a pub discussion. Youll get about as much sense there, and probably more as people in a pub are more inclined to say what *they* believe rather than what they saw in a text book. Should pub chat become a 3rd level degree?

Look at your example of liberty and wellbeing. Say you philisophically prove in a debate that liberty is more important than wellbeing. Does that invalidate the views of people who prefer to live comftably under a dictatorship? Or if you prove the reverse, does *that* invalidate any attempt to remove that dictatorship, reducing the well being of those people? At the end of the day, its just a matter of opinion.

Playboy

Sand wrote:

IMO, It asks and answers questions of little or no relevance, often trapped in a virtuous circle of self reference. Meanwhile, the world keeps turning. What the OPs original post refers to (imo) is that as a subject, it is no more enlightening than say tossing out a hot topic in a pub discussion. Youll get about as much sense there, and probably more as people in a pub are more inclined to say what *they* believe rather than what they saw in a text book. Should pub chat become a 3rd level degree?

Look at your example of liberty and wellbeing. Say you philisophically prove in a debate that liberty is more important than wellbeing. Does that invalidate the views of people who prefer to live comftably under a dictatorship? Or if you prove the reverse, does *that* invalidate any attempt to remove that dictatorship, reducing the well being of those people? At the end of the day, its just a matter of opinion.

Such ignorance tbh. Why don't you study some philosophy b4 giving an inept opinion about a subject you obviously know nothing about. Comparing philosophy to pub chat and implying that pub chat is actually more enlightening is probably the most ridiculous thing I have heard all year. I could spend an hour explaining to you how important philosophy is and was in almost every aspect of life but I have important exams in less than a week and after your post I know you wouldnt be worth the effort.

nesf

Sand wrote:

IMO, It asks and answers questions of little or no relevance, often trapped in a virtuous circle of self reference. Meanwhile, the world keeps turning. What the OPs original post refers to (imo) is that as a subject, it is no more enlightening than say tossing out a hot topic in a pub discussion. Youll get about as much sense there, and probably more as people in a pub are more inclined to say what *they* believe rather than what they saw in a text book. Should pub chat become a 3rd level degree?

Look at your example of liberty and wellbeing. Say you philisophically prove in a debate that liberty is more important than wellbeing. Does that invalidate the views of people who prefer to live comftably under a dictatorship? Or if you prove the reverse, does *that* invalidate any attempt to remove that dictatorship, reducing the well being of those people? At the end of the day, its just a matter of opinion.

Much of our present ethical views, that we now hold as fundamental, had their roots or directly were a product of philosophy.

Think where medical ethics and the like come from. Do you think that they just appear and that they are simple subjects that require little thought?

Redleslie2

Sand's idiotic troll raises this philosophical question:

Is there a limit to human ignorance?

Dave3x

Sand wrote:

Look at your example of liberty and wellbeing. Say you philisophically prove in a debate that liberty is more important than wellbeing. Does that invalidate the views of people who prefer to live comftably under a dictatorship? Or if you prove the reverse, does *that* invalidate any attempt to remove that dictatorship, reducing the well being of those people?

No, it doesn't invalidate opinion. It's not supposed to. It's supposed to offer a plan to run a nation a certain way, that has very practical applications in the area of social reform. If, when Russia was essentially completely reformed overnight (and no, I'm not an expert on the revolution that led to the USSR), those responsible had adopted a contractualist approach, or any number of other plans one finds in political philosophy- the entire history of the 20th century would have been different.

And it looks like you've become unpopular, Sand. But, at least you expressed an honest opinion, instead of toning it down because you knew you were in a forum full of philosophers....

Playboy

Dave3x wrote:

And it looks like you've become unpopular, Sand. But, at least you expressed an honest opinion, instead of toning it down because you knew you were in a forum full of philosophers....

There is a thin line between being honest and being ignorant and downright insulting to people who have studied the subject at 3rd level. If you are going to post an opinion in a philosophy forum that belittle's the subject then at least have some knowledge of that subject.

Sand

Such ignorance tbh. Why don't you study some philosophy b4 giving an inept opinion about a subject you obviously know nothing about. Comparing philosophy to pub chat and implying that pub chat is actually more enlightening is probably the most ridiculous thing I have heard all year. I could spend an hour explaining to you how important philosophy is and was in almost every aspect of life but I have important exams in less than a week and after your post I know you wouldnt be worth the effort.

There is a thin line between being honest and being ignorant and downright insulting to people who have studied the subject at 3rd level. If you are going to post an opinion in a philosophy forum that belittle's the subject then at least have some knowledge of that subject.

Its just dressed up opinions, often built on a shaky platform of reference to opinions of others back through the centuries. Sure, someone might argue a particular view in a decent fashion, but it is only their opinion at the end of the day. When you do your exams, will you say what *you* think and believe, or will you instead write down what you read in textbooks?

And BTW, is this the first time youve encountered someone who holds a opposing view to yourself? If you take what I wrote as a personal insult your course cant really have prepared you to defend your beliefs to anyone other than someone who already agrees with you, can it?

Much of our present ethical views, that we now hold as fundamental, had their roots or directly were a product of philosophy.

Think where medical ethics and the like come from. Do you think that they just appear and that they are simple subjects that require little thought?

Philosophy can be used to argue for the most virtuous or reprehensible acts, its not inherently ethical - indeed, last I heard, philosophy has discarded with outmoded concepts like right and wrong, other than what is currently right and what is currently wrong to a given group of people. Hospitals harvesting organs from the dead without telling relatives - the right thing to do for the greater good ( relatives might object)? Or violating personal liberties?

Looking at the ethics of say, research on stem cells, the relaxation of bans on it tends to have more to do with self interested pressure groups leaning on politicians to allow miracle cures to be developed (and those politicians reassessing their path to a maximised electoral vote) than it does with the likes of Bertie teasing out the theoretical implications.

No, it doesn't invalidate opinion. It's not supposed to. It's supposed to offer a plan to run a nation a certain way, that has very practical applications in the area of social reform.

Often with the caveat "in an ideal world". But most political systems and the pressures on them are anything but ideal and are often the compromises reached between different historical and social concerns. Bismark for example extended sufferage in Germany, not because he believed fervently in the concept but because he knew he could win elections by appealing to nationalism. I dont see that much has really changed in terms of setting policy. See the so called decentralisation scheme.

And it looks like you've become unpopular, Sand. But, at least you expressed an honest opinion, instead of toning it down because you knew you were in a forum full of philosophers....

Well, I wasnt great mates with anyone on this thread before I joined it. Nothings changed. No loss

muesli_offire

originally posted by Sand
indeed, last I heard, philosophy has discarded with outmoded concepts like right and wrong, other than what is currently right and what is currently wrong to a given group of people. Hospitals harvesting organs from the dead without telling relatives - the right thing to do for the greater good ( relatives might object)? Or violating personal liberties?

Are you off your metaphysical trolley my friend?
Are you seriously suggesting that there is a link between the academic discipline of philosophy, a discipline which you are
keen to situate at a remove from the real world, and the controversy of organ harvesting? Is the study of ethics is in your opinion, tantamount to grave-robbing?
Maybe this is the case, maybe.

Playboy

It is easy to take for granted our reality and the ideas that made this reality what it is today. For thousands of years philosophers have tried to understand our reality through discourse. By critically examing the ideas we have and the world we live in philosophers hope to build a foundation for truth and knowledge, a basis from which all other disciplines can work from. The very ideas and beliefs that are at the very core of our person are the domain of philosophy. If you think that your pub chat can give you a better education then I feel sorry for you.

Philosophers analyse and investigate such concepts as existence or being, morality or goodness, knowledge, truth, and beauty. Historically most philosophy has either centred on religious beliefs, or science. Philosophers may ask critical questions about the nature of these concepts — questions typically outside the scope of other disciplines, such as science. Several major works of post-medieval philosophy begin by examining the nature of philosophy. Philosophers are motivated by specific questions such as:
What is truth? How or why do we identify a statement as correct or false, and how do we reason? What is wisdom?
Is knowledge possible? How do we know what we know? What is unknown? If knowledge is possible, what is known vs. unknown? How do we take what is "known" to extrapolate what is "unknown"?
Is there a difference between morally right and wrong actions (or values, or institutions)? If so, what is that difference? Which actions are right, and which wrong? Are values absolute, or relative? In general or particular terms, how should I live? How is right and wrong defined?
What is it to be beautiful? How do beautiful things differ from the everyday? What is Art? Does true beauty exist?

These five broad types of question are called analytical or logical, epistemological, ethical, metaphysical, and aesthetic respectively. They are not the only subjects of philosophical inquiry, and there are many overlaps between the categories which are subsumed within the discipline under the four major headings of Logic, Ontology, Epistemology, and Axiology. Aristotle, who was the first to use this classification (as he believed that to call himself "sophos" or wise was immodest), also considered politics (which he saw as part of ethics), modern-day physics, geology, biology, meteorology, and astronomy as branches of philosophical investigation. The Greeks, through the influence of Socrates and his method, developed a tradition of analysis that divided a subject into its components to understand it better.

Taken from here

Redleslie2

Curiously, in this post, there's this bit of stupidity...

Sand wrote:

The real problem is the Arab world hasnt really had an Age of Enlightenment.

Sand

Are you off your metaphysical trolley my friend?
Are you seriously suggesting that there is a link between the academic discipline of philosophy, a discipline which you are
keen to situate at a remove from the real world, and the controversy of organ harvesting? Is the study of ethics is in your opinion, tantamount to grave-robbing?
Maybe this is the case, maybe.

My point is that philosophy is not ethical by default, and positions reached by philosophers are as often morally wrong as they are right. You can argue for either view in the above example. It just a matter of opinion.

And again, your philosophy course does not seem to have prepared you for contact with ideas you dont already agree with. The debates must have been thrilling.

It is easy to take for granted our reality and the ideas that made this reality what it is today. For thousands of years philosophers have tried to understand our reality through discourse. By critically examing the ideas we have and the world we live in philosophers hope to build a foundation for truth and knowledge, a basis from which all other disciplines can work from. The very ideas and beliefs that are at the very core of our person are the domain of philosophy. If you think that your pub chat can give you a better education then I feel sorry for you.

Your concern is touching. I read your link, one of the definitions it provides of what philosophy is (not), is below

The philosophical approach to these questions is not, for example, an appeal to authority (either from the past or the present), nor an examination of what most people believe, nor (usually) an examination of what is most useful or practical; it involves, rather, an examination of the relevant concepts and their relationships with other concepts and theories

Firstly, by that definition - from your link - philosophy is not concerned with the useful or the practical, which would undermine your argument that it reaches answers that everyone else uses to accomplish their work. Secondly, my real point, is that it apparently does not appeal to authority - the pub talk you sneer at is closer to the above defintion by virtue that people say what they think, rather than what theyve been told to think.

Thirdly, philosophy is apparently an examination of concepts and theories and their relationship with each other. Concepts and theories that are created to imperfectly illustrate someones opinion on how things are. Fine as far as it goes, but it has about as much impact as say the Catholic theologians teasing out of what is and is not permissable by reference to the concepts and "truths" of the christian faith - Most christians have long ago made up their own minds and give far more weight to their own opinion than the opinion of the Church and its far more educated theologians.

To go back to your original point...

For thousands of years philosophers have tried to understand our reality through discourse. By critically examing the ideas we have and the world we live in philosophers hope to build a foundation for truth and knowledge

Is the philisophical understanding of "truth" the same as the everyday understanding of "truth"? Or "knowledge"? Would it be fair to say that an activity that is more concerned with the relationship of artificial concepts and theories, rejecting practical or useful approaches, is prone to get locked into those concepts and theories leaving the impact on the world to those who do approach problem solving by asking what is the most practical or useful solution, as guided by their opinion and interests?

nesf

Sand wrote:

Philosophy can be used to argue for the most virtuous or reprehensible acts, its not inherently ethical - indeed, last I heard, philosophy has discarded with outmoded concepts like right and wrong, other than what is currently right and what is currently wrong to a given group of people.

Relative morality versus absolute morality. Debated in all areas of life as I'm sure you're well aware of. Is an act actually immoral or moral or is it circumstantial? It's a very important question. Just look at the referendums we've held in this country and the arguments on either side. Should we look to our own sense of morality or look for moral guidance from some authority like the Catholic Church? It's not outdated to think of concepts like right and wrong. Quite a lot of people do still think in terms of them on certain issues.

You can argue for either side of the above. Look at abortion. There are strong philosophical arguments both for and against. What's important is not the absolute answer but that these arguments examine and critically comment on issues at hand. It also ties into political philosophy. Where is the line between law and personal liberty? Most people "down the pub" can and will debate this. It's a very relevant issue and it's examination by philosophers is useful.

Philosophy does come into a lot of areas. It isn't a "stand-alone" subject. Ethics is one of the more succient areas when it comes to everyday life.

Sand wrote:

Hospitals harvesting organs from the dead without telling relatives - the right thing to do for the greater good ( relatives might object)? Or violating personal liberties?

There are arguments for both sides. Being in a democracy (well no not quite but you know what I mean), we have to have debate and discourse on these issues. This is everything from pub chat to high minded philosophical debate. You need both. Not everyone wants to discuss such issues from a philosophical point of view and not everyone wants to discuss such issues without also discussing the philosophical points of view.

Sand wrote:

Looking at the ethics of say, research on stem cells, the relaxation of bans on it tends to have more to do with self interested pressure groups leaning on politicians to allow miracle cures to be developed (and those politicians reassessing their path to a maximised electoral vote) than it does with the likes of Bertie teasing out the theoretical implications.

I agree with you that politicians do tend to take decisions that maximise their vote. To argue that ethical concerns are played out without self interest though is pointless. Much of ethical discussion concerns how ethics reacts to such pressures. How people's values change etc. It does not refute the place of philosophical discussion though.

Look at medical ethics like you have above. There is much discussion on this issue both by philosophers and philosophically minded doctors. These are not idle discussions but influential ones. Both sides of this divide are populated and both sides have influence. If one side completely lacked influence or did not have good arguments to support themselves then do you honestly think this issue would be so controversial?



Philosophy has it's faults as any subject or field of study has. It is also quite academic, which is not a bad thing but it can alienate people from it. It is influential and it is worth spending time at. You dismiss philosophy too quickly imho. I do agree that the reactions you've recieved on this thread are silly though. You'd think that they'd have learned that calling people names and insulting them are not ways to win arguments

simu

Redleslie2 wrote:

Curiously, in this post, there's this bit of stupidity...

Not relevant to this thread.

-simu

Redleslie2

simu wrote:

Not relevant to this thread.

-simu

The quote proves that he's trolling.

simu

I don't care what Sand has posted in other forums. Deal with the arguments he's making here.

Redleslie2

Very well, I'll pose a direct question, but I bet he won't answer, because like I say, he is trolling.

Sand, how do you reconcile your view that the problem with the arab world is that it hasn't had an age of enlightenment with your belief that philosophy merely 'asks and answers questions of little or no relevance'? Why should arabs concern themselves with such irrelevant questions.

Playboy

Sand wrote:

My point is that philosophy is not ethical by default, and positions reached by philosophers are as often morally wrong as they are right. You can argue for either view in the above example. It just a matter of opinion.

How do we distinguish what is morally right from what is morally wrong unless we critically examine the issue of morality. How do we define morality? Do you think that your opinions are not influenced by philosophical thought whether you are aware of it or not?

Sand wrote:

Firstly, by that definition - from your link - philosophy is not concerned with the useful or the practical, which would undermine your argument that it reaches answers that everyone else uses to accomplish their work. Secondly, my real point, is that it apparently does not appeal to authority - the pub talk you sneer at is closer to the above defintion by virtue that people say what they think, rather than what theyve been told to think.

Is Art practical? Is History practical? What do you mean by practical? Do you mean that it is only worth studying something when you can apply that skill in a regular work enviroment? Would not the world be a very boring place?

People who study philosophy are not told what to think. They are exposed to a multitude of profound and insightful ways of seeing and thinking about the world, reality and themsleves. This knowledge can enrich your live and the lives of the people around you. It can encourage you think critically about things and show you how to solve problems in a creativity way.

Sand wrote:

Thirdly, philosophy is apparently an examination of concepts and theories and their relationship with each other. Concepts and theories that are created to imperfectly illustrate someones opinion on how things are. Fine as far as it goes, but it has about as much impact as say the Catholic theologians teasing out of what is and is not permissable by reference to the concepts and "truths" of the christian faith - Most christians have long ago made up their own minds and give far more weight to their own opinion than the opinion of the Church and its far more educated theologians.

I really dont understand the point you are making here? Are you saying all opinions are equal? That philosophy is a waste of time because it examines thoeries and concepts and comes up with new ones. Are you saying to do away with philosophy because it doesnt have a practical application to most peoples lives? Sure why not do away with everything that doesnt have a practical application to most peoples lives? Because something does not have an obvious practical application does not mean it does not have any worth? If you picked up even an introductory text to philosophy or even Russells 'History of Western Philosophy', then I'm sure that you would be astonished at the influence philosophy has had on our culture and way of life.

Sand wrote:

Is the philisophical understanding of "truth" the same as the everyday understanding of "truth"? Or "knowledge"? Would it be fair to say that an activity that is more concerned with the relationship of artificial concepts and theories, rejecting practical or useful approaches, is prone to get locked into those concepts and theories leaving the impact on the world to those who do approach problem solving by asking what is the most practical or useful solution, as guided by their opinion and interests?

What is the the everyday understanding of truth or knowledge. Please explain it to me. When you try and explain it to me you are going to be making assumptions that will probably contradict my notions of truth and knowledge. What do we do then? Do we just leave it at that and leave everyone walking around with their own notions or do we try and find some common ground in order that we can communicate our ideas more effectively?

simu

Redleslie2 wrote:

Very well, I'll pose a direct question, but I bet he won't answer, because like I say, he is trolling.

Sand, how do you reconcile your view that the problem with the arab world is that it hasn't had an age of enlightenment with your belief that philosophy merely 'asks and answers questions of little or no relevance'? Why should arabs concern themselves with such irrelevant questions.

Maybe he's playing devil's advocate? Either way, attack the arguments he makes in this thread if you wish but I don't see why every other item he has posted during his time on boards should be dragged on here. If you have any further problems with this, PM me.

Sand

Relative morality versus absolute morality. Debated in all areas of life as I'm sure you're well aware of. Is an act actually immoral or moral or is it circumstantial? It's a very important question. Just look at the referendums we've held in this country and the arguments on either side. Should we look to our own sense of morality or look for moral guidance from some authority like the Catholic Church?

More importantly should I look to my own sense of morality or look for moral guidance from a philosopher (self proclaimed or otherwise)? If Im to look towards my own sense of morality (Catholic church are just as much philosophers as any, theyve decided on what a good life is and how it is to be achieved) then Im relying on my own opinions - like everyone does.

You can argue for either side of the above. Look at abortion. There are strong philosophical arguments both for and against.

Thats my point - I was even thinking of using abortion as an example but was afraid it would diverge onto that. Philosophy does not provide an answer to what the ethics of either organ harvesting or abortion is. In both cases, its a matter of opinion. Philosophy adds nothing beyond more opinion. Hence to claim that the boundaries of ethical behaviour are plotted from philosophical debate, or rather that this philisophical debate is more important that "pub talk" in the understanding of ethics would be ... hype, imo.

Not everyone wants to discuss such issues from a philosophical point of view and not everyone wants to discuss such issues without also discussing the philosophical points of view.

Arent they the same thing though? They are both people asking, what do I think of X,Y,Z and stating why - only I feel the pub talk is slightly better in that a philosophy student will be more inclined to be influenced by the opinions of philosophers he studied. Figures of authority as they are hailed.

Philosophy has it's faults as any subject or field of study has. It is also quite academic, which is not a bad thing but it can alienate people from it. It is influential and it is worth spending time at. You dismiss philosophy too quickly imho. I do agree that the reactions you've recieved on this thread are silly though. You'd think that they'd have learned that calling people names and insulting them are not ways to win arguments

Thats it though - Im not knocking philosophy as an activity, Im saying to the OP that I dont think it is a "real" subject. The "pub talkers" are as much philosophers as the guys on the course. When you ask them what do you think of this, they are examining what they believe and articulating it. I find it odd that there is a course for "What you should think" or "How your opinions should be framed". People have been managing just fine for millenia without being examined and marked on their stated opinions.

Sand

Do you think that your opinions are not influenced by philosophical thought whether you are aware of it or not?

Do you think that philosophy is simply articulated opinions on particular questions? Was Plato a philosopher because he got a Masters in the subject or because he articulated his opinions on how life should be ordered?

Is Art practical? Is History practical? What do you mean by practical? Do you mean that it is only worth studying something when you can apply that skill in a regular work enviroment? Would not the world be a very boring place?

I was merely saying that if Philosophy is by definition not concerned with the practical - which you appear to agree with - then the argument that it has practical benefits would be weakened. As for the impractical....If it requires a 3rd level education course to preserve the impractical then the world is already a very boring place.

People who study philosophy are not told what to think.

So then when it comes to your exams you will be writing what you think, as opposed to repeating the opinions you studied? Im actually curious on that, I didnt study philosophy so Im interested to know whether the examiners are looking for every student to present their own philosophy, or whether theyre looking for "technical" knowlege of various philosophies.

Are you saying all opinions are equal? That philosophy is a waste of time because it examines thoeries and concepts and comes up with new ones. Are you saying to do away with philosophy because it doesnt have a practical application to most peoples lives?

What Im saying is that you can no more "learn" philosophy in a course as you can do away with it by discontinuing that course.

What is the the everyday understanding of truth or knowledge. Please explain it to me. When you try and explain it to me you are going to be making assumptions that will probably contradict my notions of truth and knowledge. What do we do then? Do we just leave it at that and leave everyone walking around with their own notions or do we try and find some common ground in order that we can communicate our ideas more effectively?

If A sees B in the street, and later C asks A "did you see B?" and A says "yes", then the common understanding would be that he told the truth.

Philosophers get tied up in knots though - did A really tell the truth? Did he see B, or only think he saw B? If thought he saw B but didnt, and then claimed he had seen B, is he lying? He cant be telling the truth, because he didnt see B. The truth is he saw someone who looks like B. Therefore seeing as no one can say whether their recollection of an event is accurate, can the truth ever be said to be known? If the truth can never be known can anyone be said to lying, seeing as their lie might in fact be accurate? And so on and so forth down the torturous paths of screaming insanity until the end of all things and the dying of the suns.

All with little or no impact on the common understanding of "the truth".

transperson

Im relying on my own opinions

Sand where does your own opinions come from?

are they not shaped by the world around you?

by the ways of thinking that we pick up from tv from the web from schools from eachother down the pub and from the Government and the dominant culture.[guess what that is and guess how opinions like yours fit right in]

but where do the these people that are communicating knowledge to you get their Ideas?

someone has to come up with them!!

who comes up with ideas? where did science come from, where did democracy come from where did humanism come from where did almost every idea and discipline from psychology to economics on the planet originate, all of em with some thinker or other, steping outside the box and doing a bit of philosophy!

philosophy is about knowledge, knowing yourself and your world. you want to study knowledge you study philosophy.

if you want to know something about knowledge, yourself or the world the pub is not the place. all you get there is the same opinion as everywhere else, recycled News of the World but its heart-felt opinion and in your book thats as good as we can get.

what about the spirit of critique, that brought us so far with the Enlightenment [ guess who that involved, oh yea, Philosophers!] are we just to stop looking for and finding the gapping holes in our modern day culture and ways of life, the likes of Kant, Neitzsche, Foucault, all these broke the barriers of their time and created our world of today. the philosophical enterprise is about redefining our world about critique, what is wrong how can we do better.

Philosophy is not to be abondoned lightly.

but to top it all you speak from ignorance.

where is the appreciation of knowledge for its own sake, where is the love of wisedom???

there is none,
if only God could help us!!

Playboy

Sand wrote:

Do you think that philosophy is simply articulated opinions on particular questions? Was Plato a philosopher because he got a Masters in the subject or because he articulated his opinions on how life should be ordered?

I'm curious as to your use of the word opinion. Plato and Socrates used a method of enquiry called the Socratic Method. If you had bothered to pick up an introduction to philosophy like I suggested earlier then you would be able to figure out how philosphers do what they do.

Sand wrote:

I was merely saying that if Philosophy is by definition not concerned with the practical - which you appear to agree with - then the argument that it has practical benefits would be weakened. As for the impractical....If it requires a 3rd level education course to preserve the impractical then the world is already a very boring place.

This is a ridiculous argument. What do you mean by practical? Do you mean like farming is practical or engineering is practical? Should we do away with all impractical subjects? Are you really suggesting this? If I were you I would think about this some more b4 you make a complete fool of yourself.

Sand wrote:

So then when it comes to your exams you will be writing what you think, as opposed to repeating the opinions you studied? Im actually curious on that, I didnt study philosophy so Im interested to know whether the examiners are looking for every student to present their own philosophy, or whether theyre looking for "technical" knowlege of various philosophies.

I am interested to know what you did study Sand. Could you please tell us because it might help us understand where you are coming from .

Philosophy students have to display a command of the ideas and concepts in Philosophy and be able to critically examine those concepts and ideas and come to their own conclusions. Any philsophy student who merely regurgitates what they are taught will always be a pass student.

Sand wrote:

What Im saying is that you can no more "learn" philosophy in a course as you can do away with it by discontinuing that course.

.............. You have no idea what you are talking about and I don't have the time to keep pointing this out to you. Pick up a book!

Sand wrote:

If A sees B in the street, and later C asks A "did you see B?" and A says "yes", then the common understanding would be that he told the truth.

Philosophers get tied up in knots though - did A really tell the truth? Did he see B, or only think he saw B? If thought he saw B but didnt, and then claimed he had seen B, is he lying? He cant be telling the truth, because he didnt see B. The truth is he saw someone who looks like B. Therefore seeing as no one can say whether their recollection of an event is accurate, can the truth ever be said to be known? If the truth can never be known can anyone be said to lying, seeing as their lie might in fact be accurate? And so on and so forth down the torturous paths of screaming insanity until the end of all things and the dying of the suns.

You are describing the notion of truth in a simplistic form in one circumstance. If only life were so easy and the whole notion of truth wasnt fundamental to our species and the way we live our lives then I probably would be satisfied with your description, but thankfully I am not and we have philosophers to elaborate.

nesf

Sand wrote:

More importantly should I look to my own sense of morality or look for moral guidance from a philosopher (self proclaimed or otherwise)? If Im to look towards my own sense of morality (Catholic church are just as much philosophers as any, theyve decided on what a good life is and how it is to be achieved) then Im relying on my own opinions - like everyone does.

Yes, but your opinions can be informed or otherwise and they usually have a base in your own thinking. Ethics is essentially, the study of the moral opinions that people hold, how they come to hold them and a study of why do people in general tend to hold similar opinions on certain topics. Ethics doesn't dictate beliefs to a person, at most it consists of the philosopher in question presenting sound arguments and involved discussions to show why he holds and justifies this opinion.

Take an example. You and I hold very different opinions on an issue. If we justify and explain why we both hold them then one of us may change our minds. Or at least, we will both understand why the other person holds the opposite opinion. If we are both reasonable and not dismissive of each other then we can argue and discuss the differing opinions and their justifications for us. Essentially this is what philosophy is and where it came from. The above won't settle an issue or decide it for us, but if we can do it then we at least should have more respect for the other person.

The ability to argue is something that people seem to lack. There's a large difference between holding an opinion and holding an opinion that you have given much thought and can justify.

Sand wrote:

Thats my point - I was even thinking of using abortion as an example but was afraid it would diverge onto that. Philosophy does not provide an answer to what the ethics of either organ harvesting or abortion is. In both cases, its a matter of opinion. Philosophy adds nothing beyond more opinion. Hence to claim that the boundaries of ethical behaviour are plotted from philosophical debate, or rather that this philisophical debate is more important that "pub talk" in the understanding of ethics would be ... hype, imo.

As I've stated above, ethics doesn't seek to answer this question in an absolute manner. It presents reasoned arguments but mostly it should encourage the individual to think for themselves about what the issue is. If you approach ethics looking for a quick answer then you will be sorely dissapointed. If you approach it looking for training in reasoning, argument and logic then that's quite different. It doesn't replace your opinion, it gives you the tools to justify and shore it up well.

"Pub Talk" is just opinion. It can sometimes be justified and reasoned, but that defintely is the exception. I'm not saying that a person needs to study philosophy in order to hold justified and reasoned opinions. I'm saying that philosophy is a route through which one can strive for the above.

Sand wrote:

Arent they the same thing though? They are both people asking, what do I think of X,Y,Z and stating why - only I feel the pub talk is slightly better in that a philosophy student will be more inclined to be influenced by the opinions of philosophers he studied. Figures of authority as they are hailed.

I agree with you. Though I would point out that only a poor student of philosophy would merely parrot what he/she has read. A good philosophy student would be able to think for themselves on the issue and give you their opinion. You can be influenced or swayed by a good argument. But let's face it, being swayed by Kant is a bit better than being swayed by TV3 news.

Sand wrote:

Thats it though - Im not knocking philosophy as an activity, Im saying to the OP that I dont think it is a "real" subject. The "pub talkers" are as much philosophers as the guys on the course. When you ask them what do you think of this, they are examining what they believe and articulating it. I find it odd that there is a course for "What you should think" or "How your opinions should be framed". People have been managing just fine for millenia without being examined and marked on their stated opinions.

Actually, philosophy is one of the oldest areas of study that we have. People have always seeked to look for answers and to argue for them and discuss them with others. The term "philosophers" really doesn't work very well. It's not this official badge you recieve after you get your degree or PhD. Much like science students, a lot of people wouldn't call themselves a physicist until they'd done and published original research. It should be the same with Philosophy. A philosophy student, like myself, is a student and nothing more. My opinions are not shored up by my area of study, they are shored up because of who I am and how I have given them thought.

Philosophy is a real subject in that it is an area worthy of study. It is not as commerically viable as many other subjects, and this is a major issue nowadays, but it can help a person in many other ways as a person. Someone leaving a philosophy degree should be able to argue and know how to justify their own opinion. This isn't always the case, but the same is true of all subjects.

A degree does not mean anything. It's the person holding it that gives the degree meaning. Philosophy when studied by someone genuinely interested in it can have a lot of meaning. When studied by someone who just doesn't get it, it has nearly none. But to say it doesn't belong in university? Personally, I believe that if a person wishes to dedicate time to the study of this subject then they should be encouraged. It is as meaningful, if not more, at a personal level than any other subject. And that is what counts isn't it?

Redleslie2

nesf wrote:

"Pub Talk" is just opinion. It can sometimes be justified and reasoned, but that defintely is the exception.

If you're talking about the kind of ignorant knee jerk opinion and mindless stereotyping that Viz's Man In The Pub character parodied then I agree but in fairness, cafes and pubs have functioned as exchange centres for new ideas since I don't know when. Cafe de Flore and Les Deux Magots in Paris for instance, and there's these cafe philo places http://philos.org/anglais.html .

DadaKopf

Café Nihilsmus/Café Museum in Vienna. McDaid's in Dublin.

nesf

Redleslie2 wrote:

If you're talking about the kind of ignorant knee jerk opinion and mindless stereotyping that Viz's Man In The Pub character parodied then I agree but in fairness, cafes and pubs have functioned as exchange centres for new ideas since I don't know when. Cafe de Flore and Les Deux Magots in Paris for instance, and there's these cafe philo places (http://philos.org/anglais.html).

Like I said sometimes it can be reasoned and justified. I just dispute the fact that all pub talk is glorious exchanges of discussion on varying topics and social issues.

If you want to discuss the particular talk in a particular pub. That's a different story to discussing the general talk in a generic pub. The exception proves the rule in this case. We remember these pubs because they lack the usual ignorant knee jerk reaction and mindless stereotyping, to use your phrase, that tends to be more prevalent amoung pub goers.

Personally, I'd love it if I could walk into a random pub and have a good discussion about something. But frankly, on average, that isn't going to happen.

tj-music.com

Patience is a virtue.

Most philosophies are aiming towards a higher self awareness, a more "full" understanding of the universe and the idea of being reborn and reborn and reborn in order to experience all there is to finally reach that state of mind to be complete (and thats where most philosophers want to get to) simply takes time and that is a problem in todays society.

No time to reflect on things.

Love

Sand wrote:

IMO, It asks and answers questions of little or no relevance, often trapped in a virtuous circle of self reference. Meanwhile, the world keeps turning. What the OPs original post refers to (imo) is that as a subject, it is no more enlightening than say tossing out a hot topic in a pub discussion. Youll get about as much sense there, and probably more as people in a pub are more inclined to say what *they* believe rather than what they saw in a text book. Should pub chat become a 3rd level degree?

Playboy wrote:

Such ignorance tbh.

...

Comparing philosophy to pub chat and implying that pub chat is actually more enlightening is probably the most ridiculous thing I have heard all year.

I agree with Playboy, there's a lot of difference between studying topics at third level in a philosophical environment than casually chatting about it in the pub. That's rubbish.

Playboy wrote:

For thousands of years philosophers have tried to understand our reality through discourse. By critically examing the ideas we have and the world we live in philosophers hope to build a foundation for truth and knowledge, a basis from which all other disciplines can work from. The very ideas and beliefs that are at the very core of our person are the domain of philosophy.

That's why I think Philosophy is a "real" subject and merits university level courses and funding and further study. Unfortunately other people don't agree with that. They are entitled to their opinions of course, but I can't agree that it's "pointless" or "stupid" and I find it difficult to see why they cannot at least see that it's worthwhile, even if they don't have a personal interest in it.

Chunk

Playboy wrote:

Philosophers analyse and investigate such concepts as existence or being, morality or goodness, knowledge, truth, and beauty. Historically most philosophy has either centred on religious beliefs, or science. QUOTE]

You really don't think this proves you wrong? Go learn some physics. A real subject. That discusses science in a correct way. Perhaps because it is a science. They provide proof for things. You are an idiot. Everything else that you have mentioned is subjective. There is no good and bad. Unless it is how you percieve it. People exist through evolution. Philosophy is outdated. It helped people delude themselves into thinking they knew how they existed. I seriously can't believe there is anyone that goes along with it. Finally i would like to point out that philosophers like all of you hide behind the larger words of the vocabulary. Lets be realistic here, could you not have said it all in about one sentence of normal words. Its seems to me you attempt to bore a person out of caring anymore to make it seem like you're speaking sense. Love, your friend is definately right!!!

Chunk

I also would like to point out that i HATE the way people who like philosophy think people who realise it's wrong are ignorant. I have a feeling I understand it better than you. There is nothing... "Morality", "Truth", "Right and Wrong". Thats a load of crap. Humans exist. It is chemical. It makes sense. There is no deeper meaning behind it. As for philosophy being logical...HA!

floor_pie

Yes Chunk,at last someone is talking sense. Philosophy= an inability to argue.
\Just seems to be a license to prattle on about (half baked)ideas because they don't have any knowledge for a proper rebuttal.

simu

Chunk wrote:

You are an idiot.

Any more personal attacks from you or anyone else and you will be banned.

And if people are going to make claims about the failings of philosophy, please give examples. Stating repeatedly that it's not a "real subject" or that it's "waffle" doesn't cut the mustard.

-simu

nesf

floor_pie wrote:

Yes Chunk,at last someone is talking sense. Philosophy= an inability to argue.
\Just seems to be a license to prattle on about (half baked)ideas because they don't have any knowledge for a proper rebuttal.

Congratulations on a wonderfully lacklustre contribution to the thread. Do you have any actual points or interesting things to say? You could easily expand on what you've said. You should put more effort in, then it might be interesting. Who knows you might even convince me to leave Philosophy and return to Physics!

nesf

Chunk wrote:

You really don't think this proves you wrong? Go learn some physics. A real subject.

Hmm, this might shock you but: In France and many other European countries, Physics students take Philosophy modules in their degrees.

The two subjects mesh very well actually. One deals with modeling reality, the other with giving some meaning to what the maths says. If you study physics at a high level you do start naturally questioning and wondering about the implications of what the maths is telling you. Maths then is so intertwined with philosophy it's shocking.

Love

Love, your friend is definately right!!!

I love the way you said "your friend is *definitely right" as if you didn't know exactly who I was talking about!!

Philosophy is NOT outdated!! And actually, I know people in college studying Philosophy who have also done Physics. Which puts them in a better position to compare and contrast than either of us, IMO.

Playboy did not waffle there. And why not use all the words of the English language if they're suitable for what you are saying? That's why we have words. To express ourselves.

I also would like to point out that i HATE the way people who like philosophy think people who realise it's wrong are ignorant. I have a feeling I understand it better than you. There is nothing... "Morality", "Truth", "Right and Wrong". Thats a load of crap. Humans exist. It is chemical. It makes sense. There is no deeper meaning behind it. As for philosophy being logical...HA!

I don't think you're ignorant. I know you, and I know you're not. I just happen to disagree with your opinion.

There are such things as morality and truth. Right and wrong can sometimes be a grey area. They still exist, but are affected by our perception. It is not "crap".

Philosophy is logical. One of the cornerstones of Philosophy is logic. If someone can disprove your basic argument then all the conclusions and theories you have based on that argument are flawed.

floor_pie wrote:

Philosophy= an inability to argue.

On the contrary, I think the other people who have contributed to this thread have argued much better and much more logically than you. You have no examples, you just agreed with the previous poster and you don't back up your statements or make any new points.

Redleslie2

Chunk wrote:

I also would like to point out that i HATE the way people who like philosophy think people who realise it's wrong are ignorant. I have a feeling I understand it better than you. There is nothing... "Morality", "Truth", "Right and Wrong". Thats a load of crap. Humans exist. It is chemical. It makes sense. There is no deeper meaning behind it. As for philosophy being logical...HA!

You're probably not even aware of it, but that's a nihilistic viewpoint and nihilism is a much discussed area of philosophy, as it's argued that it's a product of postmodernism. How ironic.

To the OP, have you discussed this topic further with your friend?

Chunk

I've heard of nihilism but it throws the rest of philosophy out the window. There really is nothing to discuss about it.