7 ms·

Big fan of Agnes Callard, and ofc, Socrates. I know many people dislike philosophy because they consider it to be a form of intellectual gymnastics, but at its

Big fan of Agnes Callard, and ofc, Socrates. I know many people dislike philosophy because they consider it to be a form of intellectual gymnastics, but at its best it's almost spiritual activity, a concern with the whole purpose of life, a desire to not live as an unthinking automaton, impelled by instinct or social pressure. Socrates is the ultimate and prototypical embodiment of this, a refusal to take anything at its word, a man who interrogated the deepest things and pointed us to the abundant fruits of a life of inquiry.

mfro 2y ago
I agree wholeheartedly. I think many readers here will be among the type to feel that philosophy is not 'practical' enough, myself included. But there is something to be said for humoring (some) philosophy from time to time, it really does engage the mind in a way you wouldn't find elsewhere.
- short_sells_poo 2y ago
  If we set up a ladder of abstraction, going from the most practical to the most abstract discipline, I think we'll arrive to something like: Engineering -> Physics -> Math -> Philosophy We progressively move from the How to the Why, Philosophy being the ultimate Why? Then again, I'm but a humble engineer so why would my opinion matter :D
  - mfro 2y ago
    Absolutely. It's difficult as someone on the former end of that scale to reorient your mind short term and enjoy philosophy, I think we get grounded into practicality / do things / get results mode, and it's a great exercise to try and engage wonder / analyze / enquiry mode.
  - currymj 2y ago
    i like to think about how the influences flow in all directions. for example at one time there were a bunch of weirdos arguing over some abstruse philosophical question about the fundamental nature of true logical statements, and one of them came up with the “Turing machine”. then once it was actually built (by engineers, by way of physical and mathematical advances), it started to cause all kinds of confusion in philosophy of mind and other areas.
  - Quekid5 2y ago
    Funnily enough, I tend to think the arrows should be in the other direction. Philosophy birthed Math, which was necessary for Physics, ... etc. That's not to say Philosophy has outlived its usefulness, but... it was probably more consequential 2000, 400 or 200 years ago, in practice. (EDIT: I should add... there is also a lot of absolute dogwank in Philosophy too... but I think that's universal for any field, tbf.)
oersted 2y ago
I do think that philosophy fundamentally is intellectual gymnastics, in the sense that it is a game or an art that shouldn't be expected to have any "productive/practical/useful" output. I also think that philosophy is an extremely valuable human activity worthy of lots of respect, likewise generally with any kind of gymnastics (sports), games or art. Productivity is not the only reason to live for humans, and many productive people are not driven by productivity. Most scientists and engineers are much more driven by curiosity, mastery, morality or aesthetics (not just visual, but intellectual beauty and elegance). It's generally the same with most ambitious people, sure they may be superficially driven by power or money, but I think it's much more about realizing a certain aesthetic vision of who you want to be as a person. All of these activities lead to productive outcomes as side-effects. Games are not qualitatively much different, they may just be quantitatively less efficient. And, even if it shouldn't be expected (shouldn't be the reason to do them), they do tend to have some great productive output now-and-then.
- oersted 2y ago
  I suppose that this has a parallel cynical interpretation: - Humans tend to be selfish, in the sense that they tend to prioritize activities that develop their ego. Well generally activities that have pleasurable outcomes, and developing one's ego tends to be pleasurable due the heuristics evolution has baked into us. I guess that those that get more pleasure out of developing their ego are called ambitious. - Productivity is fundamentally about being selfless: doing things that are useful for others. - These aims align to different degrees for different activities, and I suppose that they align less for things that we call games, and I think that philosophy is closer to this category than otherwise. - The most obvious and consistent productive side-effect of games might be as entertainment for expectators. I honestly think that the main value of philosophy is that it is just engaging and entretaining to read, which is also worthy of respect. Games and philosophy also tend to have other more substantive productive outputs, but much less frequently. I'm not a big fan of this perspective, but I do think that it is somewhat equivalent to my thoughts above.
  - golergka 2y ago
    While I certainly can't claim that I truly understand their works, Hume and Kant and Hegel have taught me certain mental devices and ways of thinking that I use every day at my job.
kerkeslager 2y ago
My problem with Socrates isn't that it's mental gymnastics. My problem with Socrates is that he was an anti-democratic totalitarian and that he was disingenuous and manipulative (that's literally, explicitly what sophistry is). Defenders of Socrates are generally enamored with his reputation, retreating into appeals to authority rather than any logical or empirical defense of his ideas. In a larger sense, my problem with philosophers is generally that they are still talking about outdated figures like Socrates. What little he got right has been refined over the last few millenia, and by continuing to obsess over him we're continuing to propagate his (numerous!) mistakes along with what little good he had to say. Philosophy is a really interesting and even important area of study, but the ideas are what matter, not the people, and the obsession with the people really holds the field back by keeping stupid ideas alive long past their expiration date.
- norir 2y ago
  For me, a person who dramatically prefers democracy to totalitarianism, Socrates' critiques of democracy hold up quite well in our present context. Why limit this criticism to philosophers? Should we drop Einstein from the theory of relativity (especially given how wrong he was about aspects of quantum mechanics)? Or Newton from mechanics and so on.
  - kerkeslager 2y ago
    > For me, a person who dramatically prefers democracy to totalitarianism, Socrates' critiques of democracy hold up quite well in our present context. Which critiques specifically? Most of the critiques he made I'm aware of are not fundamental problems with democracy, but rather problems for which we have solutions in 2025--in cases where these problems are not solved it is because of concerted efforts by totalitarians to undermine democracy that these problems are not solved. As it turns out, a lot of work has been put into addressing the problems Socrates mentioned. In fact, it's arguable that some of the solutions were known at the time of Socrates, and Plato did not feel motivated to share facts which disagreed with his teacher, because, you know, sophistry. And, ultimately, Socrates presented all these ideas with the rather self-serving conclusion that philosophers should be kings--so as someone who "dramatically prefers democracy to totalitarianism", I'm sure you found some point along the way where he got it wrong. > Why limit this criticism to philosophers? Should we drop Einstein from the theory of relativity (especially given how wrong he was about aspects of quantum mechanics)? Or Newton from mechanics and so on. Uh, yes, obviously, which is why this has already happened, because physics is a field which is concerned with whether what they're teaching is true or not. Ask a physics major: did they read anything actually by Einstein? Did they read anything actually by Newton? The answer will invariably be "no", because they learned from modern textbooks which at least make an effort to communicate what we know to be true about physics. And sure, those textbooks might mention that an idea was discovered by Einstein or Newton, because they did get a lot of things right. But they aren't just having you read Einstein or Newton in physics classes, because Einstein and Newton got enough wrong that presenting their ideas unfiltered and uncorrected to students would be counterproductive. This is exactly what philosophy should be doing, and it's exactly what I'm saying philosophy is failing to do. The argument you're making is founded upon facts you only know because physics did a better job than philosophy did. The only reason you know Einstein or Newton got things wrong is because physics actually finds the mistakes of its heroes and corrects them, instead of passing them on like a genetic disease to future generations.
throw4847285 2y ago
Big fan of Philosophy, not a big fan of Agnes Callard. I love Socrates as much as the next person, but there have been millennia of philosophical inquiry since. I hate the trend among public intellectuals to pick some ancient figure and then project all modern questions and anxieties onto them. You end up not learning much about Socrates, but much about Agnes Callard. I'll take modern academic philosophy with all its jargon and impenetrability over the simplistic parables of Callard.
- voidhorse 2y ago
  I don't know anything about Agnes or their work, but I agree that such a general trend exists. There is a whole cottage industry of self-professed self-help gurus that make their money by presenting a lazy, straight reading of e.g. the stoics (ignoring any actual academic research) and repackaging their work as mantras to get you through your nine to five—oh but, no don't develop a critical consciousness about society please, just accept the current structure without question and repeat these dumbed down versions of the "ancient wisdom" and keep buying my books, thanks! It's a complete bastardization of the real heart of philosophy, and I really dislike such grifters.
  - nataliste 2y ago
    What is the real heart of philosophy?
    - throw4847285 2y ago
      The real heart of philosophy is that it is an academic discipline that attempts to formalize a method of inquiry that is by nature iconoclastic and resistant to definitive answers. Philosophy also attempts to create rigor in an area where, unlike some other academic fields, most humans can do it, but most do it very poorly (myself included).
voidhorse 2y ago
I am fundamentally incapable of understanding people who don't like philosophy. To me it's akin to being someone who doesn't like music or doesn't like art or doesn't like poetry. To be incapable of finding something that resonates with you in at least one of these domains is equivalent to being inhuman—I just cannot even comprehend how a living human being like that could exist. My sense is that people who claim to dislike philosophy either had a bad introduction to it or have been so inculcated with a way of existence reduced to "problem solving"—life viewed as a "great entry examination" or standardized test—that they are no longer capable of actual abstract curiosity and thought and are only able to proceed in spaces that are already highly constrained. Philosophical viewpoints are highly varied and highly entertaining. In some ways it is far closer in kind to art even though it is the matron of all of our sciences.

mfro 2y ago

I agree wholeheartedly. I think many readers here will be among the type to feel that philosophy is not 'practical' enough, myself included. But there is something to be said for humoring (some) philosophy from time to time, it really does engage the mind in a way you wouldn't find elsewhere.

short_sells_poo 2y ago
If we set up a ladder of abstraction, going from the most practical to the most abstract discipline, I think we'll arrive to something like: Engineering -> Physics -> Math -> Philosophy We progressively move from the How to the Why, Philosophy being the ultimate Why? Then again, I'm but a humble engineer so why would my opinion matter :D
- mfro 2y ago
  Absolutely. It's difficult as someone on the former end of that scale to reorient your mind short term and enjoy philosophy, I think we get grounded into practicality / do things / get results mode, and it's a great exercise to try and engage wonder / analyze / enquiry mode.
- currymj 2y ago
  i like to think about how the influences flow in all directions. for example at one time there were a bunch of weirdos arguing over some abstruse philosophical question about the fundamental nature of true logical statements, and one of them came up with the “Turing machine”. then once it was actually built (by engineers, by way of physical and mathematical advances), it started to cause all kinds of confusion in philosophy of mind and other areas.
- Quekid5 2y ago
  Funnily enough, I tend to think the arrows should be in the other direction. Philosophy birthed Math, which was necessary for Physics, ... etc. That's not to say Philosophy has outlived its usefulness, but... it was probably more consequential 2000, 400 or 200 years ago, in practice. (EDIT: I should add... there is also a lot of absolute dogwank in Philosophy too... but I think that's universal for any field, tbf.)

oersted 2y ago

I do think that philosophy fundamentally is intellectual gymnastics, in the sense that it is a game or an art that shouldn't be expected to have any "productive/practical/useful" output. I also think that philosophy is an extremely valuable human activity worthy of lots of respect, likewise generally with any kind of gymnastics (sports), games or art. Productivity is not the only reason to live for humans, and many productive people are not driven by productivity. Most scientists and engineers are much more driven by curiosity, mastery, morality or aesthetics (not just visual, but intellectual beauty and elegance). It's generally the same with most ambitious people, sure they may be superficially driven by power or money, but I think it's much more about realizing a certain aesthetic vision of who you want to be as a person. All of these activities lead to productive outcomes as side-effects. Games are not qualitatively much different, they may just be quantitatively less efficient. And, even if it shouldn't be expected (shouldn't be the reason to do them), they do tend to have some great productive output now-and-then.

oersted 2y ago
I suppose that this has a parallel cynical interpretation: - Humans tend to be selfish, in the sense that they tend to prioritize activities that develop their ego. Well generally activities that have pleasurable outcomes, and developing one's ego tends to be pleasurable due the heuristics evolution has baked into us. I guess that those that get more pleasure out of developing their ego are called ambitious. - Productivity is fundamentally about being selfless: doing things that are useful for others. - These aims align to different degrees for different activities, and I suppose that they align less for things that we call games, and I think that philosophy is closer to this category than otherwise. - The most obvious and consistent productive side-effect of games might be as entertainment for expectators. I honestly think that the main value of philosophy is that it is just engaging and entretaining to read, which is also worthy of respect. Games and philosophy also tend to have other more substantive productive outputs, but much less frequently. I'm not a big fan of this perspective, but I do think that it is somewhat equivalent to my thoughts above.
- golergka 2y ago
  While I certainly can't claim that I truly understand their works, Hume and Kant and Hegel have taught me certain mental devices and ways of thinking that I use every day at my job.

kerkeslager 2y ago

My problem with Socrates isn't that it's mental gymnastics. My problem with Socrates is that he was an anti-democratic totalitarian and that he was disingenuous and manipulative (that's literally, explicitly what sophistry is). Defenders of Socrates are generally enamored with his reputation, retreating into appeals to authority rather than any logical or empirical defense of his ideas. In a larger sense, my problem with philosophers is generally that they are still talking about outdated figures like Socrates. What little he got right has been refined over the last few millenia, and by continuing to obsess over him we're continuing to propagate his (numerous!) mistakes along with what little good he had to say. Philosophy is a really interesting and even important area of study, but the ideas are what matter, not the people, and the obsession with the people really holds the field back by keeping stupid ideas alive long past their expiration date.

norir 2y ago
For me, a person who dramatically prefers democracy to totalitarianism, Socrates' critiques of democracy hold up quite well in our present context. Why limit this criticism to philosophers? Should we drop Einstein from the theory of relativity (especially given how wrong he was about aspects of quantum mechanics)? Or Newton from mechanics and so on.
- kerkeslager 2y ago
  > For me, a person who dramatically prefers democracy to totalitarianism, Socrates' critiques of democracy hold up quite well in our present context. Which critiques specifically? Most of the critiques he made I'm aware of are not fundamental problems with democracy, but rather problems for which we have solutions in 2025--in cases where these problems are not solved it is because of concerted efforts by totalitarians to undermine democracy that these problems are not solved. As it turns out, a lot of work has been put into addressing the problems Socrates mentioned. In fact, it's arguable that some of the solutions were known at the time of Socrates, and Plato did not feel motivated to share facts which disagreed with his teacher, because, you know, sophistry. And, ultimately, Socrates presented all these ideas with the rather self-serving conclusion that philosophers should be kings--so as someone who "dramatically prefers democracy to totalitarianism", I'm sure you found some point along the way where he got it wrong. > Why limit this criticism to philosophers? Should we drop Einstein from the theory of relativity (especially given how wrong he was about aspects of quantum mechanics)? Or Newton from mechanics and so on. Uh, yes, obviously, which is why this has already happened, because physics is a field which is concerned with whether what they're teaching is true or not. Ask a physics major: did they read anything actually by Einstein? Did they read anything actually by Newton? The answer will invariably be "no", because they learned from modern textbooks which at least make an effort to communicate what we know to be true about physics. And sure, those textbooks might mention that an idea was discovered by Einstein or Newton, because they did get a lot of things right. But they aren't just having you read Einstein or Newton in physics classes, because Einstein and Newton got enough wrong that presenting their ideas unfiltered and uncorrected to students would be counterproductive. This is exactly what philosophy should be doing, and it's exactly what I'm saying philosophy is failing to do. The argument you're making is founded upon facts you only know because physics did a better job than philosophy did. The only reason you know Einstein or Newton got things wrong is because physics actually finds the mistakes of its heroes and corrects them, instead of passing them on like a genetic disease to future generations.

throw4847285 2y ago

Big fan of Philosophy, not a big fan of Agnes Callard. I love Socrates as much as the next person, but there have been millennia of philosophical inquiry since. I hate the trend among public intellectuals to pick some ancient figure and then project all modern questions and anxieties onto them. You end up not learning much about Socrates, but much about Agnes Callard. I'll take modern academic philosophy with all its jargon and impenetrability over the simplistic parables of Callard.

voidhorse 2y ago
I don't know anything about Agnes or their work, but I agree that such a general trend exists. There is a whole cottage industry of self-professed self-help gurus that make their money by presenting a lazy, straight reading of e.g. the stoics (ignoring any actual academic research) and repackaging their work as mantras to get you through your nine to five—oh but, no don't develop a critical consciousness about society please, just accept the current structure without question and repeat these dumbed down versions of the "ancient wisdom" and keep buying my books, thanks! It's a complete bastardization of the real heart of philosophy, and I really dislike such grifters.
- nataliste 2y ago
  What is the real heart of philosophy?
  - throw4847285 2y ago
    The real heart of philosophy is that it is an academic discipline that attempts to formalize a method of inquiry that is by nature iconoclastic and resistant to definitive answers. Philosophy also attempts to create rigor in an area where, unlike some other academic fields, most humans can do it, but most do it very poorly (myself included).

voidhorse 2y ago

I am fundamentally incapable of understanding people who don't like philosophy. To me it's akin to being someone who doesn't like music or doesn't like art or doesn't like poetry. To be incapable of finding something that resonates with you in at least one of these domains is equivalent to being inhuman—I just cannot even comprehend how a living human being like that could exist. My sense is that people who claim to dislike philosophy either had a bad introduction to it or have been so inculcated with a way of existence reduced to "problem solving"—life viewed as a "great entry examination" or standardized test—that they are no longer capable of actual abstract curiosity and thought and are only able to proceed in spaces that are already highly constrained. Philosophical viewpoints are highly varied and highly entertaining. In some ways it is far closer in kind to art even though it is the matron of all of our sciences.