5 ms·
> that fundamentalists use philosophical arguments to justify their positions doesn't mean philosophy is largely transparent cover for religious apologetics, do
by lisper 3y ago
> that fundamentalists use philosophical arguments to justify their positions doesn't mean philosophy is largely transparent cover for religious apologetics, does it?
Not in and of itself. But I don't see many other applications. Do you?
- knightoffaith 3y agoLiterally every philosophical stance compatible with atheism, no? Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying.
- lisper 3y agoPhilosophy finds application as cover for religious apologetics to make it seem more intellectually respectable than it otherwise might. I don't see many other areas where philosophy has an impact outside academia.
- knightoffaith 3y agoIt finds application for atheists making arguments against religion as well. It finds application in defenses of free will. Scientists seem to subscribe to a Popperian falsifiability. Logic, part of philosophy, has found widespread use, as I'm sure you know.
- lisper 3y agoI would argue that logic is more math than philosophy. I'll grant you Popper. But he's the exception (along with Dennett and Maudlin) not the rule.
- knightoffaith 3y agoI mean, I think philosophers defending religious fundamentalism are also exceptions rather than the rule.
- lisper 3y agoYes, I agree. I think most philosophers are just gazing at their navels.
- knightoffaith 3y agoWhat are you expecting exactly? Most people aren't going to have a massive effect on the world, whether in philosophy or not. Philosophy is far from the only academic discipline in which most practitioners don't have a significant impact on the world.
- lisper 3y ago> What are you expecting exactly? I don't know -- something. And it's not about the individuals, it's about the field as a whole. Classical music is not something I particularly enjoy, but I get that some people do, and so the efforts of all the composers and conductors and musicians who produce it have value for that audience. I can appreciate that even if I don't particularly care for the music myself. Likewise for Domino's pizza. Nascar. Cricket. Truck pulls. Rodeos. I don't get it, but I get that some people do. Philosophy seems to have no audience beyond its own practitioners. That puts it on a par with things like yoga and homeopathy, and does not justify having entire departments at universities studying it. God help us, it turns out that you can actually get a Ph.D. in both fields: https://bellarmine.lmu.edu/yoga/ https://bellarmine.lmu.edu/yoga/ https://www.bircham.edu/doctor-phd-degree-homeopathy.html https://www.bircham.edu/doctor-phd-degree-homeopathy.html
- knightoffaith 3y agoWait, I'm sorry - philosophy has no audience beyond its own practitioners? Just look at all the people interested in philosophy in this thread. I'm willing to bet a large sum of money that the majority of people who have implicitly expressed interest in philosophy here are not practicing philosophers. I'm quite surprised by your reference to music; music is something I usually bring up when people tell me that philosophy is useless. You yourself like Dennett's work, don't you? I know you think that most philosophers haven't produced anything that interesting to you, but I think it's often the case that impact is Pareto-distributed across practitioners of a discipline, certainly not unique to philosophy. Like, I imagine a lot of people are only interested in a select few musicians/bands.