Whats the point of philosophy?

wylo

Like seriously, is it all complete nonsense and a waste of time?
What do you expect from it?
Heres the way I see it, its a search for truth but what do you actually expect to find?
Some new world like in the Matrix movie? Do you actually expect to see something new? (Im asking myself this as well , not just other posters here).

Even if you find something that you are convinced is truth, how do you know you're any more correct than you were before that?
Theres no gauge, theres nothing to measure off? You gain "knowledge" and perhaps a shift in experience but this tells you NOTHING about whats true.
Why? Because you've no way of knowing.
We dont have a clue, simple as.

My only conclusion is that it is a search for happiness. Actually I think thats the only reason anyone does anything,from doing charity work with the homeless, to trying to be a CEO of the largest business in the country, to trying to be a philosopher and discover the "truth" of reality, its to find happiness.

I have my experience of liberation(or whatever label I choose to put on the condition) as you see me ranting about in that other thread, but Ive no way of knowing that theres any more truth in that than there is in anything else Ive ever experienced in life.

So we need to delete this forum because philosophy is pointless :pac:.

Rant over

18AD

True, some philosophy searches for truth, or there is even the more concise philosophy that actually asks what the possibilities of truth are.

I'm not familiar with them myself.

However, why do does philosophy need truth? Surely philosophy can be used to simply clarify. Many philosophers thought truth was impossible. It doesn't mean they weren't doing philosophy.

Some people do actually look for an alternate reality. It's quite common in metaphysics or in some modern thought experiments. In fact, that's where a lot the matri stuff probably came from.

Happiness is a side-effect of flourishing. You don't do things to make yourself happy you become happy because you do things. Trying to be happy is ultimately a failure because you can't find happiness itself anywhere.

Cavehill Red

wylo wrote: »

Like seriously, is it all complete nonsense and a waste of time?
What do you expect from it?
Heres the way I see it, its a search for truth but what do you actually expect to find?
Some new world like in the Matrix movie? Do you actually expect to see something new?
Even if you find something that you are convinced is truth, how do you know you're any more correct than you were before that?
Theres no gauge, theres nothing to measure off?

You understand that all of the questions you posed are philosophical in themselves?

wylo

18AD wrote: »

However, why do does philosophy need truth? Surely philosophy can be used to simply clarify. Many philosophers thought truth was impossible. It doesn't mean they weren't doing philosophy.

Yes, but doesnt that not back up my point? Doing the philosophy was pointless if it was an impossible truth they were trying to find. Itd be like trying to travel to the edge of the horizon.

Some people do actually look for an alternate reality. It's quite common in metaphysics or in some modern thought experiments. In fact, that's where a lot the matri stuff probably came from.

Fair enough, I suppose Im only really talking about people who are trying to get a better understanding of "truth".

Happiness is a side-effect of flourishing. You don't do things to make yourself happy you become happy because you do things. Trying to be happy is ultimately a failure because you can't find happiness itself anywhere.

Yea true, for me its not about doing things , when there is a genuine feeling of satisfaction/happiness I usually have no interest in wanting anything, even more truth (actually you ARE right, its usually after Ive done something!!). Yea sure, Im convinced this is "the" truth when Im really happy, but really? I don't have a bloody clue.

wylo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

You understand that all of the questions you posed are philosophical in themselves?

True, but perhaps how I phrased them made sound more philosophical than they meant to sound.
Supposing someone else arrived, never posted here, just posted on the soccer forum, clicked here by accident, read some of the stuff including my stuff and shouted...
"None of you have a fu**in clue, STFU, now let me get back Man Utd beating Arsenal!!"
I think itd be just as valid, and wouldnt sound very philosophical at all.

We've no way of knowing whatsoever whats true, not one bit, it could be like inception , you think you've figured out you're in one dream only to be completely clueless that you are still in a dream!!

18AD

wylo wrote: »

Fair enough, I suppose Im only really talking about people who are trying to get a better understanding of "truth".

You can come to better understandings even without the idea of truth. A simple example would be most relationships are founded on understanding the other person. There is no hidden truth underlying the relationship. Same could apply to morality.

Yes, but doesnt that not back up my point? Doing the philosophy was pointless if it was an impossible truth they were trying to find. Itd be like trying to travel to the edge of the horizon.

No, because I'm not going to go around telling people there's no truth, unless it's on the cards as a discussion. Could it really be understood as second hand knowledge? Wouldn't that be the same as people being told that there is a truth?

Some people may decide to continue their search. For example science has not figured it all out, but it may do so in the future with better technology and understanding.

If you never tried in the first place you'd never know there was no truth, because you didn't even bother looking. I guess it would be troubling if you found out that your entire quest for truth was based on a misunderstanding. People can base their lives on these so called truths.

Cavehill Red

wylo wrote: »

True, but perhaps how I phrased them made sound more philosophical than they meant to sound.
Supposing someone else arrived, never posted here, just posted on the soccer forum, clicked here by accident, read some of the stuff including my stuff and shouted...
"None of you have a fu**in clue, STFU, now let me get back Man Utd beating Arsenal!!"
I think itd be just as valid, and wouldnt sound very philosophical at all.

We've no way of knowing whatsoever whats true, not one bit, it could be like inception , you think you've figured out you're in one dream only to be completely clueless that you are still in a dream!!

I'm just trying to point out to you that by positing these questions you are yourself assuming a philosophical position and therefore undermining your own argument. Your Man Utd fan would not be positing a position, simply expressing ignorance.
The purpose of philosophy is perhaps best defined as an ongoing quest to counter ignorance.
Your position is that certain things are unknowable therefore attempting to understand them is a useless pursuit. I suggest that in itself is a philosophical position, one of nihilism or existentialism, perhaps. Then you might clarify what you mean or challenge my position. Thus we both get closer to a more enlightened understanding of the issues you've raised.
And that's how philosophy works.

Lady Chuckles

I search for the truth, so I guess I'm one of those you aim your post at

I don't expect to "find" anything as such. I just intend to find different point of views and opening up my mind to new ideas - and, if I'm lucky, form an opinion of my own

wylo wrote: »

Even if you find something that you are convinced is truth, how do you know you're any more correct than you were before that?
Theres no gauge, theres nothing to measure off? You gain "knowledge" and perhaps a shift in experience but this tells you NOTHING about whats true.
Why? Because you've no way of knowing.
We dont have a clue, simple as.

That's what makes it so interesting. No one knows.
It's not about being correct. It's about finding what you yourself believe in. What is your own truth to why we live, why things happen and where we're headed?

I don't think philosophy is "nonsense" or "pointless" (like you said) at all. I think people should do it more often. There's nothing wrong with opening your mind and form an own opinion or idea, rather than just take to other people's opinions without thinking it through first. Most things you hear is already angled in one way or another. :pac:

wylo

18AD wrote: »

You can come to better understandings even without the idea of truth. A simple example would be most relationships are founded on understanding the other person. There is no hidden truth underlying the relationship. Same could apply to morality.

Defining whats good or bad is really just pointing out what makes us satisfied(or happy) or not satisfied.
But that doesnt mean we are going to get any closer to truth.
But yea fair enough, if philosophy can make us happier, then I bow down to it as a practical tool.
But I still stand by my position on saying that it doesnt mean we'll know anything more about the nature of reality.

No, because I'm not going to go around telling people there's no truth, unless it's on the cards as a discussion. Could it really be understood as second hand knowledge? Wouldn't that be the same as people being told that there is a truth?

What im saying is, even if you have first hand knowledge, you have no idea if you are right or not. So even if you are living a new experience , and see "truth", you've nothing to reference it off, and hence you've no idea if its true or not, no matter how real it feels.

Im not even saying theres no truth, im just saying its impossible to ever know if there's truth or not.

I could take the line that "this is all there is, right in front, this is it, this is truth", because thats how it feels, but I dont have a clue, its an opinion based on feeling and "seeing".

Some people may decide to continue their search. For example science has not figured it all out, but it may do so in the future with better technology and understanding.

I would be seperating science from philosophy in my point, because science can give us all a better more comfortable life.

If you never tried in the first place you'd never know there was no truth, because you didn't even bother looking.

Again I dont know if theres no truth, I just dont know full stop! Which highlights the point that trying and trying is futile because other than personal comfort you'll never know if you're right or not. So I guess if we can trick ourselves into personal comfort then ill have to accept Im wrong and that philosophy does have a purpose.

wylo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'm just trying to point out to you that by positing these questions you are yourself assuming a philosophical position and therefore undermining your own argument. Your Man Utd fan would not be positing a position, simply expressing ignorance.
The purpose of philosophy is perhaps best defined as an ongoing quest to counter ignorance.

But you're only countering ignorance within what is experience, we've no idea of the correctness of what is being experienced.
It would be like being in a dream and figuring out that everything green that you saw was actually blue , and that it was just an optical illusion. You still dont have a clue that you're in the dream.
Im not saying we're in a dream, im just saying I dont know.

Your position is that certain things are unknowable therefore attempting to understand them is a useless pursuit.

Im kind of saying that yea, that you have no reference to what is correct, so even if you do figure something out, or see something new through philosophy, or come to a new understanding, you still don't know if THAT is correct. You've no proof.
And hence ,to claim that you now see the truth is just a lie.

I suggest that in itself is a philosophical position, one of nihilism or existentialism, perhaps.

Not sure, maybe a small bit, Im not saying life has no meaning , or that nothing is true at all. To say that my whole experience of the world is untrue would imply I know its untrue. Its very easy say that everything is an illusion, you could make some good arguemtns, but really, I dont know, and it feels somewhat pointless trying to find out.
Its not that I dont believe in anything, its more an acknowledgment that even if I do believe in something I must be aware that it may be complete nonsense.
And with that , trying to find out the truth of it is a waste of time.

Then you might clarify what you mean or challenge my position. Thus we both get closer to a more enlightened understanding of the issues you've raised.
And that's how philosophy works.

True, you got me there, here I am saying that philosophy is pointless, but in a philosophy forum.
But I still dont see how that is less ignorant than the Man Utd fan coming and saying the same thing.
Maybe hes a philosopher as well, because he has that stance.

wylo

Lady Chuckles wrote: »

I search for the truth, so I guess I'm one of those you aim your post at

I don't expect to "find" anything as such. I just intend to find different point of views and opening up my mind to new ideas - and, if I'm lucky, form an opinion of my own

That goes back to my dream analogy I posted above ,you can search in and out, learn off others, hear opinions, even enjoy new experiences, but you'll never know if any of it is true. Dont get me wrong, maybe it will be but you wont actually know.

That's what makes it so interesting. No one knows.

I guess its somewhat interesting, but it still feels like a group of people digging for diamonds in a small farm in Co. Clare where they already know there is no diamonds. But I guess you're making the argument that its the digging thats the productive part, not necessarily the result? (Sorry I dont mean that in a patronizing way, just using it as an analogy)

It's not about being correct. It's about finding what you yourself believe in. What is your own truth to why we live, why things happen and where we're headed?

My opinions would be useless because I cant know if they are true or not, they may be mildly interesting to some but I still dont know if they are right or not.

I don't think philosophy is "nonsense" or "pointless" (like you said) at all. I think people should do it more often. There's nothing wrong with opening your mind and form an own opinion or idea, rather than just take to other people's opinions without thinking it through first. Most things you hear is already angled in one way or another. :pac:

Again though, even going down the path of not taking other opinions and forming my idea, Ive no clue if its going to be right or not.

wylo

I think I just found a label for my point, Im a bit of a "phirrhonist", only im not trying to pit one philosophy against another, im just saying that we've no way of knowing anything is true....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism

From a Stoic point of view, Pyrrho found peace by admitting to ignorance and seeming to abandon the criterion by which knowledge is gained. Pyrrho's ignorance was not the ignorance of children or farm animals: it was a knowledgeable ignorance, arrived at through the application of logical reasoning and exposition of its inadequacy. The school of thought developed primarily in opposition to what it saw as the dogmatism, or ultimately unfounded assertions of the Stoics; Pyrrhonists made distinctions between "being" and "appearing" and between the identity and the sensing of a phenomenon.
Pyrrho and his school were not actually "skeptics" in the later sense of the word. They had the goal of αταραξια (ataraxia - peace of mind), and pitted one dogmatic philosophy against the next to undermine belief in the whole philosophic enterprise. The idea was to produce in the student a state of aversion towards what the Pyrrhonists considered arbitrary and inconsequential babble. Since no one can observe or otherwise experience causation, external world (its "externality"), ultimate purpose of the universe or life, justice, divinity, soul, etc., they declared no need to believe in such things. The Pyrrhonists pointed out that, despite claims that such notions were necessary, some people "ignorant" of them get by just fine before learning about them. They further noted that science does not require belief and that faith in intelligible realities is different from pragmatic convention for the sake of experiment. For each intuitive notion (e.g. the existence of an external world), the Pyrrhonists cited a contrary opinion to negate it. They added that consensus indicates neither truth nor even probability. For example, the earth is round, and it would remain so even if everyone believed it were flat. Unless, of course, it is flat, and we all simply believe it is round.

18AD

wylo wrote: »

What im saying is, even if you have first hand knowledge, you have no idea if you are right or not. So even if you are living a new experience , and see "truth", you've nothing to reference it off, and hence you've no idea if its true or not, no matter how real it feels.

Im not even saying theres no truth, im just saying its impossible to ever know if there's truth or not.

What exactly does truth involve and where is it?

How exaclty does one 'see' truth?

Is sight the only way one can perceive it? Could you think it? Is 2+2=4 not an unquestionable truth?

Morbert

The "problem" with a lot of philosophy is that much of it has been solved. I think its major modern contributions can be towards the development and understanding of language and ontologies. After all, consciousness is linked to the language centre of the brain. If you understand the use of language, you can understand the mind.

wylo

18AD wrote: »

What exactly does truth involve and where is it?

I dont know, I really dont, but ill throw my opinion anyway, for me truth means the actual nature of our existence,the reason (or lack of reason) why we exist, what reality looks/feels/sounds/ like without perceptions plus any senses we are unaware of.
Truth is what something really looks like and has 0% interpretation.

Now, thats the thing I am saying is impossible. That it will always be interpreted and will always be from our own point of view.
Its literally impossible to see this supposed truth. And as a result , renders trying to see it useless.
Ill give you an example of the supposed truth Im saying cant be seen.
When I see grass its green, lets pretend when a dog sees it its grey (I just made that up but you know what I mean).
We know because of physics why Im seeing at as green , and a dog is seeing it as grey, but without perception , without light, without eyes, what is the truth of this grass?
My answer? It doesnt bloody matter, to try and look past our perceptions is a waste of time. We dont even if the whole thing is illusive or not. We dont even know if the whole thing is a dream or not. We cant find out truth , because we've nothing to base it on, or work off.

Maybe Ive gotten the whole idea of philosophy wrong, really Im only talking about the nature of reality and existence.
But even the philosophy of good and bad is pointless is it not? It goes back to satisfaction/content. People could argue all day about morality , but all it would take is one guy to get up and hit another guy a swift punch in the face for everyone to understand the difference between right and wrong.

How exaclty does one 'see' truth?

I thought I knew that, having detached from the belief of self, I could see truth, not with my eyes, but with my brain (cant explain it tbh) but I cant claim that my current experience is any more true than the past experience.

Is sight the only way one can perceive it?

no idea,

Could you think it?

You could think you are thinking it.:)

Is 2+2=4 not an unquestionable truth?

Interesting , it is of course, but thats only because we created 2+2=4.
So its truth within our experience. Which doesnt make it the truth im talking about.

18AD

wylo wrote: »

I dont know, I really dont, but ill throw my opinion anyway, for me truth means the actual nature of our existence,the reason (or lack of reason) why we exist, what reality looks/feels/sounds/ like without perceptions plus any senses we are unaware of.
Truth is what something really looks like and has 0% interpretation.

Of course that's not possible. Reality doesn't look/feel/sound like anything without experience. Without experience there is only nothingness, beyond our concept of nothingness. So truth doesn't really look like anything on this account.

Even if we could know that, what use is it at all if it has no application to humanity? Maybe it would meaningless?

wylo

18AD wrote: »

Of course that's not possible. Reality doesn't look/feel/sound like anything without experience.

Cant argue with that, only to say "our" reality.

Without experience there is only nothingness, beyond our concept of nothingness. So truth doesn't really look like anything on this account.

But does this mean we should call experience truth? Maybe thats what Ill have to resign to. But then that makes everything true. Even visions of Santa Clause, because there is experience of the vision of Santa Clause.

Even if we could know that, what use is it at all if it has no application to humanity? Maybe it would meaningless?

Thats my point though, people could argue and make philosophical statements about truth , illusion, falsehood, but really does it push us any further?

I do think it goes back to wanting to be content/happy.

Maybe Lady Chuckles was spot on, perhaps its the attempt to figure out stuff thats good for the mind, not the actual result?

18AD

wylo wrote: »

But does this mean we should call experience truth? Maybe thats what Ill have to resign to. But then that makes everything true. Even visions of Santa Clause, because there is experience of the vision of Santa Clause.

True in what sense? If you see a fast moving blur or have a dream, these are true experiences. It's your interpretation of what those things mean that would be erroneous. e.g. If you saw santa claus then you did see santa claus. It doesn't mean santa exists, it just means you saw santa claus.

Thats my point though, people could argue and make philosophical statements about truth , illusion, falsehood, but really does it push us any further?

Towards what? A better understanding? Certainly. Truth? Maybe not.

wylo

18AD wrote: »

Towards what? A better understanding? Certainly.

Could you elaborate on this? A better understanding of what? Its one thing for someone to claim a better understanding, but theres nothing to show that they are any less deluded than they were, only feeling?

wylo

btw, Im completely aware of the irony of me saying philosophy is pointless, only for that statement to become a philosophical discussion.
Cant be helped I guess!:D

18AD

wylo wrote: »

Could you elaborate on this? A better understanding of what? Its one thing for someone to claim a better understanding, but theres nothing to show that they are any less deluded than they were, only feeling?

A better understanding of anything. Do you understand how enzymes work or group dynamics or macroeconomics or your thoughts or the nature of taste or feelings or memory?

wylo

no I dont
And fair enough I guess its better to understand those things.
But would you categorize them as philosophy as is discussed in this forum?

strobe

wylo wrote: »

Like seriously, is it all complete nonsense and a waste of time?
What do you expect from it?
Heres the way I see it, its a search for truth but what do you actually expect to find?
Some new world like in the Matrix movie? Do you actually expect to see something new? (Im asking myself this as well , not just other posters here).

Even if you find something that you are convinced is truth, how do you know you're any more correct than you were before that?
Theres no gauge, theres nothing to measure off? You gain "knowledge" and perhaps a shift in experience but this tells you NOTHING about whats true.
Why? Because you've no way of knowing.
We dont have a clue, simple as.

My only conclusion is that it is a search for happiness. Actually I think thats the only reason anyone does anything,from doing charity work with the homeless, to trying to be a CEO of the largest business in the country, to trying to be a philosopher and discover the "truth" of reality, its to find happiness.

I have my experience of liberation(or whatever label I choose to put on the condition) as you see me ranting about in that other thread, but Ive no way of knowing that theres any more truth in that than there is in anything else Ive ever experienced in life.

So we need to delete this forum because philosophy is pointless :pac:.

Rant over

Well you can't find absolute truth about the question of what temperature water boils at at sea level. Your thermometer might be sitting in your bubbling beaker of water down on the beach reading 100C and not getting any higher while the water turns to gas. But how do you know you weren't abducted by mystic time aliens from Zargon 5 during the night who have altered your memories of water really boiling at 112C at sea level so that you now think it boils at 100C and now follow you invisibly everywhere you go in case you try to head down to the beach and when you do they render you unconscious and switch the mercury in your thermometer with a different element to fool you. And they do this to every human being alive to make sure we always wrongly believe the boiling point of water is 100C?

All you can do is try to arrive at the most likely and reasonable (to you) understanding of how things are, of what you, however temporarily, consider most likely to be the closest to the truth at present when all evidence has, and all views have, been considered.

Philosophy is handy for helping you do that sometimes. It's ok to say "I don't know but I think probably x because y" and see what others think about y.

Also, it's good for funsies.

18AD

wylo wrote: »

no I dont
And fair enough I guess its better to understand those things.
But would you categorize them as philosophy as is discussed in this forum?

Of course. If the topic is up for debate then reasonable discussion may follow. You could approach any field of inquiry philosophically. Check the vast array of 'philosophy of ______' books.

If there were truths it'd be the end of philosophy. That's why philosophers keep the truth a secret.

wylo

18AD wrote: »

Of course. If the topic is up for debate then reasonable discussion may follow. You could approach any field of inquiry philosophically. Check the vast array of 'philosophy of ______' books.

If there were truths it'd be the end of philosophy. That's why philosophers keep the truth a secret.

Fair enough , I stand corrected, philosophy in general is not pointless, just the kind of philosophy that I was attempting is.

And as strobe says, its good for funsies.

philologos

One of the best decisions I ever made was to study philosophy at university alongside computer science.

While I was at university - I continually got asked by friends, family members and so on, what is philosophy? What's the point in doing that?. When I get asked what I studied on a regular basis, people ask me why I did philosophy.

Philosophy, is fundamentally important to the way we are. If one wanted to get into a strict rendering of the Greek philo sophia, it means the love of wisdom. However, philosophy for me is much more than this.

Philosophy is about probing into each and every area of the conceivable and asks the questions that nobody else dares ask, or even the questions that people regard as utterly pointless. Philosophy is about looking to every corner and asking why are things the way they are, why do things work the way they do, and if they are the way they are, and if they work the way they do, what does this ultimately mean to us. Philosophy is about the relation of philosophy to all other things whether or not they are material or immaterial.

People call philosophy a 'wooly subject' at times, people say what's the point of philosophy when we have natural science, or indeed what's the point of probing into how we perceive all other things when we have arguably much more tangible things such as psychology. I find this kind of reasoning fallacious, particularly when we see that we owe our natural science to the fuslogikoi or the natural philosophers such as Thales, Anixamander, Anixamenes, Hereclitus, and further on right up to Aristotle. In many university faculties natural science as we know it today was natural philosophy. Likewise psychology is equally the child of philosophy, it was largely influenced by Decartes and Cartesian dualism.

Philosophy is of immense value. It encourages critical thinking, it encourages a natural curiosity that is inherent to all human beings.