4 ms·

I agree with both you and GP at the same time. Here's what splits the difference: science can't help us answer your list of genuinely crucial and relevant quest

I agree with both you and GP at the same time. Here's what splits the difference: science can't help us answer your list of genuinely crucial and relevant questions... but neither, really, can philosophy. GP is fundamentally right that those questions have proven intractable to philosophy. Philosophy is a standing list of all the theses put forward as solutions to those questions. But even people who are fully engaged with, have a stake in and spend their whole lives wrestling with such questions can come to diametrically or orthogonally opposed answers. Shrug? Philosophy offers lots of frameworks, tools, prior art, etc. to tackle such questions with. But it can offer you no sure answers and no means of mediating between potential answers. Science, while it has huge blindspots and terminal unanswered questions, can goddamn perform in the areas that are well-trodden.

pmoriarty 6y ago
"those questions have proven intractable to philosophy" There are plenty of philosophers (and non-philosophers) who've thought they did in fact answer such questions, so they would not agree with you that these questions have been intractable. What philosophy lacks is the broad consensus that science has, there's also arguably no way to "objectively" tell who is right in philosophy, as what that even means or what standards we use is itself open to debate. "it can offer you no sure answers and no means of mediating between potential answers" If you agree with someone about the ground rules and assumptions, then you can judge and by some such standards there have been "objectively" provable answers and "progress". But is philosophy's function to find answers? Many would say that it's actually more about helping you to find questions. I've heard that in science finding the right questions is often the harder and more important thing than finding the answers, which are often a pretty straightforward process after you know the questions to ask. If philosophy can help to ask the right questions, then it can be useful even if it doesn't help you find answers that will convince everyone no matter what assumptions they have or are willing to grant. People involved in the sciences (and believers in scientific ideals) often pride themselves as being open to questioning everything, and greatly value such openness. First, this itself is a philosophical position, so if such a position is useful to science then philosophy is useful to science. Second, while such openness is often claimed as an ideal, in practice it's common for people involved in the sciences (and their fans) not to be so open after all. Philosophical training can help them to be more questioning and see their own assumptions where they might be blind to them otherwise. So this too makes philosophy useful to science (or at least the ideals of science that so many aspire to). Next, philosophy, like math, is useful for training the mind. You can become a more rigorous thinker by studying philosophy -- this I believe is one reason that people with a philosophy degree are the ones most commonly admitted to law school. Philosophy could also expand your mind or your horizons, and let you see things from another perspective that you otherwise might have been blind to. That's been one of its most valuable uses for me.
- istjohn 6y ago
  > But is philosophy's function to find answers? You're moving the goal posts. Why did you just say that philosophy can help us address a long list of questions if you're willing to concede that maybe philosophy isn't for answering questions at all. OP wants answers. They want to develop a personal philosophy. They are not looking to "expand their horizons" or "question everything." > there's also arguably no way to "objectively" tell who is right in philosophy, as what that even means or what standards we use is itself open to debate. Then it's not going to be very useful to OP, is it? It's like using a random number generator to predict the Powerball. "One of these numbers will win. Can't say which, though."
  - pmoriarty 6y ago
    "You're moving the goal posts. Why did you just say that philosophy can help us address a long list of questions if you're willing to concede that maybe philosophy isn't for answering questions at all." Because I was answering people who insisted that philosophy was has to be useful. I'm not moving the goal posts so much as questioning their assumption that philosophy must have a use to be of value. "OP wants answers" But this sub-thread is not about the OP's wants. It's a reply to people challenging the value of philosophy. "Then it's not going to be very useful to OP, is it?" Again, you're assuming that philosophy has to be useful to be of value. And, again, it can be, for the reasons I stated before, but it can still be valuable even if it isn't.
    - istjohn 6y ago
      You've misunderstood me if you think I'm arguing philosophy has no value. I'm only arguing that studying it will not help someone develop a personal philosophy.

pmoriarty 6y ago

"those questions have proven intractable to philosophy" There are plenty of philosophers (and non-philosophers) who've thought they did in fact answer such questions, so they would not agree with you that these questions have been intractable. What philosophy lacks is the broad consensus that science has, there's also arguably no way to "objectively" tell who is right in philosophy, as what that even means or what standards we use is itself open to debate. "it can offer you no sure answers and no means of mediating between potential answers" If you agree with someone about the ground rules and assumptions, then you can judge and by some such standards there have been "objectively" provable answers and "progress". But is philosophy's function to find answers? Many would say that it's actually more about helping you to find questions. I've heard that in science finding the right questions is often the harder and more important thing than finding the answers, which are often a pretty straightforward process after you know the questions to ask. If philosophy can help to ask the right questions, then it can be useful even if it doesn't help you find answers that will convince everyone no matter what assumptions they have or are willing to grant. People involved in the sciences (and believers in scientific ideals) often pride themselves as being open to questioning everything, and greatly value such openness. First, this itself is a philosophical position, so if such a position is useful to science then philosophy is useful to science. Second, while such openness is often claimed as an ideal, in practice it's common for people involved in the sciences (and their fans) not to be so open after all. Philosophical training can help them to be more questioning and see their own assumptions where they might be blind to them otherwise. So this too makes philosophy useful to science (or at least the ideals of science that so many aspire to). Next, philosophy, like math, is useful for training the mind. You can become a more rigorous thinker by studying philosophy -- this I believe is one reason that people with a philosophy degree are the ones most commonly admitted to law school. Philosophy could also expand your mind or your horizons, and let you see things from another perspective that you otherwise might have been blind to. That's been one of its most valuable uses for me.

istjohn 6y ago
> But is philosophy's function to find answers? You're moving the goal posts. Why did you just say that philosophy can help us address a long list of questions if you're willing to concede that maybe philosophy isn't for answering questions at all. OP wants answers. They want to develop a personal philosophy. They are not looking to "expand their horizons" or "question everything." > there's also arguably no way to "objectively" tell who is right in philosophy, as what that even means or what standards we use is itself open to debate. Then it's not going to be very useful to OP, is it? It's like using a random number generator to predict the Powerball. "One of these numbers will win. Can't say which, though."
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  "You're moving the goal posts. Why did you just say that philosophy can help us address a long list of questions if you're willing to concede that maybe philosophy isn't for answering questions at all." Because I was answering people who insisted that philosophy was has to be useful. I'm not moving the goal posts so much as questioning their assumption that philosophy must have a use to be of value. "OP wants answers" But this sub-thread is not about the OP's wants. It's a reply to people challenging the value of philosophy. "Then it's not going to be very useful to OP, is it?" Again, you're assuming that philosophy has to be useful to be of value. And, again, it can be, for the reasons I stated before, but it can still be valuable even if it isn't.
  - istjohn 6y ago
    You've misunderstood me if you think I'm arguing philosophy has no value. I'm only arguing that studying it will not help someone develop a personal philosophy.