The Use of Philosophy

To refine our actions. If a person has ideas/schemas that are inherently motivational, they'll instinctively seek to accomplish whatever it is that they set their mind to.

We make the world better when we make ourselves better.

Honestly, I could care less about that Wittgenstein shit, too time-consuming. Philosophy is important to me because much of it is very practical.

 

Two most useful branches: ethics and politics. I say this because with ethics I can measure the impact of my actions on the individual level. Politics is simply ethics applied to a group. Therefore, group impact can also be measured via politics.

 

I guess the question really is whether one views a human being predominantly as a mind with rational capabilities or as a biological organism. The latter has certain pre-established modes of living (things which produce pleasure due to some level of evolution, preprogramming, and so on). Things like good food, finding a significant other, and overall engagement in society are part of this. There's no reason cake has to be pleasing, but it generally is, and you can spend your whole life enjoying pleasures of this nature.
For these, I don't think philosophy is primary, unless one opts for the very broad definition of philosophy where basically any thinking whatsoever is philosophy.

Once we view the human being as a site of general intelligence, as the AI community would put it, philosophy is everything. The biological substrate is secondary, and the question is finding meaningful things to do. The brute facts about our biology become secondary, and the realm of reason becomes primary (which is practically infinite, and has nearly no brute facts constraining it.... since any logically possible idea can be its object)... here we have to find meaning for ourselves, rather than have preprogramming tell us what's pleasing or not.

I think the world is very, very much still in the phase of the biological. Worrying about what to eat, worrying about whether it triggers pleasure, whether or not we fit into society even if the rules of society don't necessarily make sense (presumably things we evolved with some distant purpose...kinda like our craving for sugar/fat has a distant purpose to keep us alive, but is dangerously out of touch with the present state of the world)...trying to win attention by being the richest or best looking in the room, even if there's someone richer and better looking farther away in the world. All very concrete, biologically rooted drives it seems.



I bring this whole thing up to sort of say that the whole ivory-tower vs human distinction doesn't have to exist, it just happens to at this point of history. There could be a future where all we really have left to do is philosophize. Then it would no longer be an impractical topic, any more than eating food for pleasure is.

There is of course lots of practical philosophy. I agree that a lot of political theory is very philosophical, and also of importance for practical matters. As is ethics.

 

It's an opportunity to think more deeply about the world, and our lives in it. It's important to me, as I think it has been a crucial part of improving people's lives practically, but also opening our minds to a much wider expanse, of what our existence might mean.

 

Just to be careful with my meaning, I think "important" can either mean how much I think it makes sense for it be studied in society vs it could mean how much people seem to care. I don't endorse the biological urges stuff -- I think philosophy is fun/see no reason not to pursue it right now itself. Seeking deep meaning is interesting/fun, and I think the biological urges stuff is often boring in comparison.
So what I was talking of is why I think philosophy remains kind of a minority interest as a matter of fact, rather than how important it ought to be.

So in this sense, I'd not find it weird or inconsistent with my picture of things if historically, the olden days had more interest in the mass public directed to philosophical issues. I think they could be interested right now, as well, just it's pretty understandable given how much influence primitive biology plays that it's relatively not widespread. Where I'm not sure is if there's any good explanation as to why a majority of people would naturally be less philosophical today than in the olden days.

After all, there's a vast difference between the God that most worship and the 'philosopher's God' -- even today in the religious crowd. Am I to be led to believe that even the 'traditional' religious crowd was much more philosophical then than now? It would be strange, as I'd not think scientism should affect the traditional crowd.

So it would seem that the intellectuals, which constitute a minority of society/are not the people even today ruled mainly by biology, are the ones who've shifted to 'scientism'. That is, where people like Newton could be found thinking philosophically, scientists of today are pretty dismissive of the discipline by comparison. I think this is natural enough, not endorsed by me (I think the scientism stuff is often highly irrational). After all, a lot of academics are driven by publications and tangible progress, and frankly that's just easier to achieve in a discipline that asks things you can find out just by testing/not the most fundamental/weirdest questions out there.

Probably what I can say is that at best, maybe the tone of the majority of intellectuals has an influence on that of the mass public, and that the move to scientism has colored the public to be sort of more brutally secular and practical.

But I think I still consider the religious attitude of the days of old to be more kind of grossly biological than truly philosophical (how many people of deep religious interest, especially in the old days, would say that hey, you shouldn't trust your reason too much, it'll trick you, trust God instead!). E.g. the obsession with marriage/sexuality seems more like a stigma on polyamorous stuff (similar to the coarsely generalizing reasoning people use when they condemn those who consume alcohol just because some are drunkards) than anything really motivated by spirituality.

I'd think the faith in logic and reason has if anything increased (e.g. people probably trust science more than they used to)/the non-secular focus on 'deep meaning' may have decreased, and it sort of balances out because philosophical attitudes often incorporate both. I'm not sure I consider pure spiritual musing without much reasoning to be philosophy at least as I traditionally understand it. At least, if we don't draw that distinction, why not call everything philosophy?

Still, I think the simplest, most direct version of my point is I don't think my impression is there ever really was a tremendous interest in philosophy (like to the level you or me seems to be interested), and without that level, I'd say even if there was some more interest in the past (whether or not this is true is history/I don't know history), I'd still count it as people being ruled more by concrete biological drives.

I think there's a part of me that thinks how it is today is more natural than the days of old. I honestly think most traditionally religious thought is so incredibly superstitious and unnaturally so that I find it more understandable how people today are driven by very concrete things / would find it weird for the common man of the days of old to be concerned with philosophy on the basis of a shaky foundation.
I mean, my picture even if you were right that the olden times were more philosophical (kinda on the basis of less strident atheism going around) is that it's still ultimately closer in spirit to the biological drives than the truly philosopohical drives. I always felt traditional religion has a lot to do with a crude way to keep the social order.
That it's more about society than about truth. And that even the unintellectual stridently atheist scientists are still more driven by an itch for truth than those whose only interest in philosophy got triggered more or less solely by association with traditional religion (contrast this with people like Leibniz, whose theorizings about God I regard as genuinely philosophical in spirit).

I think what I was addressing in my old post is when you can expect people to get truly philosophical in spirit, not a sort of pseudo-philosophical attitude.

 

Philosophy is the most fulfilling waste of time a human being can partake in. It is the Sisyphean task of attaining wisdom.

@Ren Do you favor Wittgenstein's earlier or later period?

 

Yes, philosophy is important. Everything humans do is determined by philosophy (or philosophies rather). Political philosophy determines how we set up and run our governments. The philosophy of science determines what counts as science. And so on with religious philosophy, social philosophy, ethics, etc. Some of philosophy can be more abstract sometimes to the point of absurdity, especially when dealing with the branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, but metaphysics ultimately determines how we view our world.

So yes, philosophy matters. That is, philosophy matters if you care to think about what you are doing, that is. If you are okay with letting other people do your thinking for you, then I guess it would not matter very much. However, I think that everyone is a philosopher on some level regardless of what they think about academic philosophy.

But there is my take on philosophy in the "broadest sense".

 

Yes, I am, but not exclusively or even primarily. I prefer his later work of which I favor the presentation style and metaphorical exposition (reflective of the newer philosophy) even more than the content itself. I'd say I was more in line with Hegel and Heraclitus though:

I noticed you had posted another thread on Wittgenstein with a quote from the Tractatus, so I'll post a reply there using my interpretation of Wittgenstein's work.

 

What writing do you do?

 

Philosophy is a branch of human knowledge that is not science, but emerges out of it. Some examples: "what is consciousness", "what counts as a scientific theory", "What counts as knowledge to begin with", "What is intelligence", "What is the purpose of reason". There are literally a whole world of philosophical problems that are not scientific, but are nevertheless related to science.

Of course philosophy matters. Without philosophy, we would not have a "scientific method". Further, the wrong philosophy can literally disable science and prevent progress. I think philosophy is highly misunderstood and highly undervalued.

 

We all have big picture narratives that shape our lives, whether we're conscious of them or not. To say that testing their accuracy is a necessary endeavor is a serious understatement. It's for this reason philosophical discussion not only has its place, it's priceless in my opinion.