What problems does philosophy solve

[Eise]

I think one example of why philosophy can be useful is to analyze why not every science can have exactly the same method and criteria for (preliminary) truth, e.g. the differences between physics and history...

 

See the Jesus thread.

[PeterJ]

2501 - It would not be possible for science to supersede philosophy. It would like mathematics superseding psychology, They are different areas of study. This is why they have different names. .

[John Cuthber]

2501 - It would not be possible for science to supersede philosophy. It would like mathematics superseding psychology, They are different areas of study. This is why they have different names. .

Would you like to explain that to all the people with PhDs and D.Phils in science?

 

Also you have claimed that philosophy can solve all questions- but you have not explained how.

Perhaps you could illustrate it with a concrete example.

The problem I face is that I don't know which pub to go to next Friday.

How does philosophy solve that problem?

Edited November 2, 2014 by John Cuthber

[Strange]

he problem I face is that I don't know which pub to go to next Friday.

How does philosophy solve that problem?

 

Apparently, you should not make such an extreme choice; you must go to all pubs and none of them simultaneously. Ommm....

[PeterJ]

John - Are you saying that you cannot distinguish a philosophical problem from a scientific one? And what has all those PhDs got to do with anything?

 

But no matter. I've said my piece. It seems even Kant is unknown around here and I didn't take that distant possibility into account, so probably pitched my comments all wrong. .

[John Cuthber]

All those people who studied science and have got doctorates in philosophy might not agree with your rather odd assertion that "They are different areas of study. This is why they have different names. . ".

Whether I can tell a scientific problem from a philosophical one is beside the point.

Why would I care what the solution to a philosophical problem might be?

You seem to have split all the world's problems into two groups- the ones to which we actually need solutions, and the ones which philosophy can actually solve.

 

What use is that?

[PeterJ]

Lol. Yes, why would you care what the solution to philosophical problems might be. First one would have to know what they are.

 

This is childish and I'm off.

 

It amazes me that there is so little interest in these issues on this forum.

[John Cuthber]

Well, I guess it's true that we would need to know what philosophical questions are.

And it also seems that they are the only problems that philosophy can solve.

And the whole tread;'s purpose is identifying such problems.

And rather than doing so you seem to be running away.

 

 

Another possibility isa that philosophy solves precisely zero problems of any note.

[Strange]

It amazes me that there is so little interest in these issues on this forum.

 

Hmmm... Like an entire thread devoted to the question...

[Dekan]

If someone posting here was a Doctor of Philosophy, would their posts be better than everyone else's, or just the same

[Strange]

If someone posting here was a Doctor of Philosophy, would their posts be better than everyone else's, or just the same

 

Apparently it depends whether they were a Doctor of Eastern Philosophy or a Doctor of Western Philosophy.

Edited November 2, 2014 by Strange

[Dekan]

I don't care which it is, the word "Philosophy" makes me feel sick.

 

Can't we get rid of it, and replace it by "Science" and "Engineering". These words feel good and wholesome. I don't want "Philosophy", it sounds repulsive

[2501]

And Mathematics! Don't forget math, it is the foundation to all science and engineering .

[Eise]

If someone posting here was a Doctor of Philosophy, would their posts be better than everyone else's, or just the same

 

It is hard to be humble... Here and here. See what you think.

 

Note: I am not Doctor. How do you call somebody who finished his study, but did not write a thesis? Bachelor?

I don't care which it is, the word "Philosophy" makes me feel sick.

 

Oh, man! Then you should see a doctor.

[arc]

Philosophy resembles a post game commentary on what should have/could have been of the human condition. It dwells on our shortcomings through examining our past experiences, and for those that believe in its usefulness to overcome the biological nature of human behavior, presumes it can or does influence the later outcomes of the sport, be it the triumphant wins or the tragic losses. And in this regard appears to be going down the same dead end road as astrology.

 

Anyway, thats my philosophy on philosophy.

[Eise]

Philosophy resembles a post game commentary on what should have/could have been of the human condition. It dwells on our shortcomings through examining our past experiences, and for those that believe in its usefulness to overcome the biological nature of human behavior, presumes it can or does influence the later outcomes of the sport, be it the triumphant wins or the tragic losses. And in this regard appears to be going down the same dead end road as astrology.

 

Beautifully written. It only has nothing to do with what academic philosophers do. Just to clear this up: philosophy is not a science. But to declare everything useless that is not science might be very wrong.

[John Cuthber]

 

Beautifully written. It only has nothing to do with what academic philosophers do. Just to clear this up: philosophy is not a science. But to declare everything useless that is not science might be very wrong.

Dear me, I would have thought that anyone daring to enter this thread would have avoided obvious straw manning.

" to declare everything useless that is not science might be very wrong."

Just as well that nobody got even close to doing that .

 

In general it's risky to declare anything useless, when someone asks, nobody can actually show that it has a use.

 

Incidentally, is it just me or does this

Lol. Yes, why would you care what the solution to philosophical problems might be. First one would have to know what they are.

 

This is childish and I'm off.

 

It amazes me that there is so little interest in these issues on this forum.

remind anyone else of a child, asked a question to which they don't know the answer, saying "I know- but I'm not telling you"?

Edited November 3, 2014 by John Cuthber

[Strange]

Incidentally, is it just me or does this

remind anyone else of a child, asked a question to which they don't know the answer, saying "I know- but I'm not telling you"?

 

<raises hand>

[Eise]

Dear me, I would have thought that anyone daring to enter this thread would have avoided obvious straw manning.

" to declare everything useless that is not science might be very wrong."

Just as well that nobody got even close to doing that .

 

Then how do you interpret this sentence?

 

And in this regard appears to be going down the same dead end road as astrology.

[John Cuthber]

 

Then how do you interpret this sentence?

 

"And in this regard appears to be going down the same dead end road as astrology."

Among other things, I interpreted it as not including music.

So Music is an example of something which:

is useful

Is not science and

is not astrology (or, indeed, philosophy)

Did you think you had a point?

[Eise]

Did you think you had a point?

 

No, I didn't. But your answer is so unclear that I still don't know how you interpret "And in this regard appears to be going down the same dead end road as astrology".

 

I interpreted:

Astrology is useless.

Philosophy is like astrology

--> Philosophy is useless

 

(If you like you can also take 'BS' instead of 'useless'.)

 

If arc meant something else he should say so.

[John Cuthber]

We both agree (rightly or wrongly) Arc meant "Philosophy and astrology are both useless." or something close to that.

 

However you leapt from that to " to declare everything useless that is not science might be very wrong.".

And I pointed out that nobody had declared anything like that.

 

Someone said that two specific things (which happen not to be science) were useless.

Your idea only makes sense if, for some bizarre reason, you think that everything which is not science is philosophy (and vice versa).

 

I pointed out that, for example, music is neither science nor philosophy.

Arc didn't comment on the value of music (and nor did anyone else until I mentioned it).

Yet you implied that he declared it useless (along with everything else that isn't science)

 

As I said, it's a straw man.

Edited November 5, 2014 by John Cuthber

[Willie71]

I think philosophy has a use, not in answering questions, but in encouraging metacognition. If we don't stop to think "why is it like this?" something common to science, but also philosophy, we can get caught up in assuming everyone else sees and experiences the world the same way.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Willie71

[Eise]

However you leapt from that to " to declare everything useless that is not science might be very wrong.".

And I pointed out that nobody had declared anything like that.

 

OK, now I see what you mean. Yes, I reacted a bit from anger here. It is my strong suspicion, that arc thinks it, but you are right, he did not state it.

But if music is useful, it is in a completely different way than science. Science always has the promise of its use: technology. With technology we can change our environment, we can reach many of our goals with help of science. We can't with music. But music is more or less a value, it makes life worth living, people enjoy music. But if you mean that, then philosophy is also useful. Many people enjoy philosophy, so it is useful. Many people need philosophy to come to terms with life, to find their meaning in life. So in this way, philosophy is not useless at all.

But I think arc will not come back at this topic. He just wanted to make a rant, and does not want to discuss this. If he would, he would do something useless... namely philosophy.

[arc]

Beautifully written.

 

Thank you, I really appreciate that.

 

 

It only has nothing to do with what academic philosophers do. Just to clear this up: philosophy is not a science. But to declare everything useless that is not science might be very wrong.

 

 

Philosophy resembles a post game commentary on what should have/could have been of the human condition. It dwells on our shortcomings through examining our past experiences, and for those that believe in its usefulness to overcome the biological nature of human behavior, presumes it can or does influence the later outcomes of the sport, be it the triumphant wins or the tragic losses. And in this regard appears to be going down the same dead end road as astrology.

 

I said "resembles" a post game commentary, I didn't say it was one. And I said "for those" that believe in its usefulness to overcome the biological nature of human behavior, I was not referring to the academics that you speak of. I was referring to the sizable group that believe philosophy can be used to modify their behavior/and/or environment and by that, change their "karma" in regards to "influencing" their metaphorical "triumphant wins or tragic losses". Which of course it is no more effective at doing than astrology.

 

 

He just wanted to make a rant, and does not want to discuss this. If he would, he would do something useless... namely philosophy.

 

For a philosopher you sure seem to have missed every metaphorical meaning I put in that "beautifully written" argument.