Is there a point in philosophising?

Dades

Playboy wrote:

Philosophy is applied across all areas of our lives all the time .. just because you dont notice it doesnt mean it doest happen.

Of course it happens. People do it all the time.

But I don't believe society would break down if all of todays modern philosophers were shipped off to the moon. People will still make their own minds up. Crucial decisions will still be made. We don't need philosophers to be moral.

Playboy

Go your nearest library and pick up a book up on bioethics or ethics in general. When medicine or government are involved in making a crucial decision about an ethical issue who do you think they turn to? Take for instance gene-therapy and certain countries conservative stance on it, where do you think that type of moral guidance comes from?

Dades

Playboy wrote:

where do you think that type of moral guidance comes from?

So philosophers are now moving in on the role traditionally occupied by the religious hierarchy? I have nothing against people who enjoy philosophy, but the idea that they should be entrusted as our moral guardians grates with me.

Just as with religious organisations, I object to the idea that because someone has struggled through a library of ancient tomes that they are better qualified to make a moral decision in modern society.

A goverments may consult with a "philosopher", but you can be sure they will turn to se what the people [read: voters] want.

Society can speak for itself, be it through the media, interest groups, the Internet, or any number of means available today.

Playboy

w8 a sec here ... philosophers who examine ethical issues such as gene therapy, euthanasia and abortion cannot be compared to religion. I dont mean to be condescending here m8 but try picking up and reading some contemporary philosphy b4 you knock it.

The voters are not the best people to make decisions about highly complex medical and ethical issues. People who are experts in that specific area and fully understand the implications and ramifications of said issues are the best people to advise elected representatives on that issue.

This idea you have of philosophers as people who sit in a dark and dusty room going over ancient tomes is ridiculous. Have a look at some of the videos on this website and it might give you an idea of what contemporary ethics is about.

Dades

Playboy wrote:

I dont mean to be condescending here m8 but try picking up and reading some contemporary philosphy b4 you knock it.

I keep making the point that I'm not knocking it. I was trying to voice my opinion that the art philosophy is of less importance than it once was. So is basket-weaving - and I don't have a problem with that either.

This idea you have of philosophers as people who sit in a dark and dusty room going over ancient tomes is ridiculous.

You know what - you're right. There is probably more to the definition of philosophy than I am familiar with.

In my defence people DO constantly refer to long dead philosophers, and it is probably this fact that had muddied my mental waters. I'll have a listen to a few discussions tomorrow.

The voters are not the best people to make decisions about highly complex medical and ethical issues. People who are experts in that specific area and fully understand the implications and ramifications of said issues are the best people to advise elected representatives on that issue.

When in comes to ethical issues are "philosophers" the only objective minds who warrent an opinion? Not to say that they can't be used in an advisory capacity, but shouldn't the thoughts of cross-section of community also be taken into account?

nesf

Hmm, personally (and this is only my opinion here rather than a reasoned argument), I've never been able to draw a straight line dividing philosophy and scientific/medical ethics. I think there is a huge overlap in thinking between the two and I know that medical and scientific ethics grew from philosophy in one sense. And anyone dismissing medical or scientific ethics as not worthwhile is just confirming the fact that they are fools and know little of what they speak. So could I propose that at least some philosophy is inherently worthwhile due to the questions it is asking being of crucial importance with regard to other fields of human endeavour?


It's like the argument that writing fiction has no worthwhile purpose. Philosophy troubles itself with some of the most important ethical and moral questions. Surely that in itself is a worthwhile endeavour?

Yes philosophy is elitist and uses complicated "jargon" to make it less accessable to members of the general public. But this is also the case for nearly every science and liberal art.

In fact now that I think about it, I don't think I've ever seen a good case put forward for why philosophy is not worthwhile.

Dades

nesf wrote:

It's like the argument that writing fiction has no worthwhile purpose. Philosophy troubles itself with some of the most important ethical and moral questions. Surely that in itself is a worthwhile endeavour?

I don't think anyone since the OP has suggested it wasn't worthwhile. What I know to have been challenged is the notion that "philosophy is the highest human endeavour".

nesf

The Atheist wrote:

I don't think anyone since the OP has suggested it wasn't worthwhile. What I know to have been challenged is the notion that "philosophy is the highest human endeavour".

The "highest human endeavour" is such a subjective thing that I don't think it's worth arguing about tbh.

DadaKopf

This, from Paul Ricoeur's obituary in today's Guardian:

"The symbol sets us thinking," in Ricoeur's famous phrase: we were not so much the creators of our symbols as their creatures, and philosophy was our ever-incomplete attempt to discern their multiple meanings. The purpose of thinking was not to gain knowledge, but to learn to consider the world in the light of our irremediable ignorance.

simu

DadaKopf wrote:

(Guardian quote)

Best reason so far, imo.