Philosophy and Practicality

Denerick

Shall the twain ever meet?

Personally I think the two concepts are embodied in the person of Edmund Burke, who combined a startling degree of abstract thought with practical action based on both personal empirical evidence and the reasoned arguments and essays of his contemporaries. But I find it difficult to sympathise with many postmodernist philosophers, who essentially say nothing but say it with grave arrogance and pomposity.

Cannibal Ox

Feminist philosophy springs to mind. De Beauvoir, Greer, Irigay, Butler. A lot of political philosophers have an impact, Singer, Nussbaum, Sen. Education philosophers like Dewey and Friere. Even the classics have an indirect impact, particularly in law

Universal Declaration of Human Rights wrote:

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

That's Rousseau and Kant.

If you ask a postcolonial theorist I'm sure they could also point out a few ways how western philosophy has contributed towards Western hegemony

In general, I think it has an indirect impact. Sociology and political science are good examples, where you have theory normally informing empirical work, and a lot of the research that's produced tends to be directed towards effecting policy. So you have philosophical ideas being used to indirectly effect practical everyday life.

EDIT:
I forgot, Karl Marx :pac:

Gary L

For me nothing could be more practical than philosophy. I don't think of it as a school of thought so much as a way of approaching things. How could you figure anything out if you didn't gear up your thought process properly first?

ghost_ie

Denerick wrote: »

Shall the twain ever meet?

Personally I think the two concepts are embodied in the person of Edmund Burke, who combined a startling degree of abstract thought with practical action based on both personal empirical evidence and the reasoned arguments and essays of his contemporaries. But I find it difficult to sympathise with many postmodernist philosophers, who essentially say nothing but say it with grave arrogance and pomposity.

But isn't this the way most people live their lives? When faced with a problem they (a) ask their friends for their thoughts on how to proceed and (b) consider those thoughts (and their own), reject the more outrageous and follow the most sensible lines.

I have to say I agree with you about many (if not all) postmodernist philosophers.

Valmont

I know it's not exactly in fashion these days but Ayn Rand took the practicalities of philosophy very seriously in her writings. Considering you asked the question, I think you will definitely get something out of the essay Philosophy, Who Needs It?.

raah!

It depends on what you think philosophy is. People often criticise its usefullness by contrasting it with science, but science itself sprang from philosophy. So before we say anything else, we can say philosophy is useful because it led to science.

Secondly, I don't think it's fair to criticise philosophies for not reaching conclusions about things which they had no intention to reach conclusions about. Political philosophers will reach conclusions about politics based on their premises, moral philosophers reach moral conclusions , scientists (natural philosophers/empricists) come to conclusions about material things by considering material things.

If you think the only useful methods of inquiry are those which lead to direct empirical results then I guess you could say it's fairly useless. But this is not what attracts people to philosophy.

loveissucide

Psychology is another example of how Philosophy is needed, considering David Hume's work is a key foundation of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Treatise_of_Human_Nature#Of_the_Understanding

David Matthew

I admire the thoroughness and practical foci (relatively speaking) of Dan Zahavi myself; he has a calm, objective and refreshingly clear style rarely found in philosophers educated in the phenomenological tradition.

I like the saying, popularly (but, I understand, mistakenly) attributed to Edmund Burke: 'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.'

Of course, the philosophically inclined of us will immediately ask: 'What is it to do nothing?' I think the gripe many people have with philosophy is that it is seen to contribute nothing. While not true even in the constricted/common sense, this supposition also fails to examine what it really means to do something. Are those furiously engaged in practical pursuits really contributing quite so much as they believe? Or might many of them be fleeing from what philosophy chooses to face?