Why Does Philosophy Matter?

[Charlemagne_III]

We hear some people say philosophy doesn’t matter because it is not useful, only confuses, and gives no evidence of progress anywhere compared to science.

How would you answer this complaint?

 

[oldcelt]

We hear some people say philosophy doesn’t matter because it is not useful, only confuses, and gives no evidence of progress anywhere compared to science.

How would you answer this complaint?

I view it as a good exercise for the mind. The criticism that it advances nothing is true to an extent. Most philosophy offers no proof, only a series of suppositions. It main saving grace is when people learn how to properly use logic through the reading and exercise of philosophy.

 

[Bahman]

We hear some people say philosophy doesn’t matter because it is not useful, only confuses, and gives no evidence of progress anywhere compared to science.

How would you answer this complaint?

It didn’t exist if it was not matter.

 

[Lucy107]

We hear some people say philosophy doesn’t matter because it is not useful, only confuses, and gives no evidence of progress anywhere compared to science.

How would you answer this complaint?

It’s usually people who aren’t good at philosophy who diss it …

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Since philosophy is by definition the pursuit of wisdom, and science makes no claims regarding wisdom, one would think that everybody would be all for philosophy … in spite of any confusion that may result. Clarity often rises out of confusion.

 

[Polycarp1]

It’s usually people who aren’t good at philosophy who diss it …

Hmmm…interesting philosophy!

 

[Lucy107]

Since philosophy is by definition the pursuit of wisdom, and science makes no claims regarding wisdom, one would think that everybody would be all for philosophy … in spite of any confusion that may result. Clarity often rises out of confusion.

Well, the Proverbs go on and on about this topic …

 

[Iron_Donkey]

We hear some people say philosophy doesn’t matter because it is not useful, only confuses, and gives no evidence of progress anywhere compared to science.

How would you answer this complaint?

I would reply as follows:

The statement that philosophy doesn’t matter is itself philosophical. If philosophy doesn’t matter, then that statement, being part of philosophy, doesn’t matter. Ergo, if philosophy doesn’t matter, then it doesn’t matter that philosophy doesn’t matter.

And if it doesn’t matter that philosophy doesn’t matter, then the (purported) fact that philosophy doesn’t matter couldn’t have any implications that were relevant to anything in particular (otherwise, the statement would matter, and hence philosophy would matter).

Now, the statement that philosophy gives nothing and that we should ignore it and focus on the physical sciences or other “useful” pursuits (where, presumably, a pursuit is “useful” if it makes us die slightly later or allows us to leave our corpse on a slightly larger pile of stuff) is a consequence of the statement that philosophy doesn’t matter.

But then the statement that philosophy doesn’t matter has a meaningful consequence (in fact, a philosophical one), and so it turns out that the statement does matter. Which is a contradiction.

Q.E.D.

Admittedly, I would reply in this way primarily because I like messing with people who say things like this. Saner responses exist. They do mostly involve that any discussion of what matters is inherently philosophical, though.

 

[tomarin]

I wouldn’t say it doesn’t matter if only because it is the invention by the Greeks of the dispassionate search for truth that set the West apart from the world’s other great civilizations - but I do sometimes feel it is a bit of a parlor game in some of its manifestations.

I don’t think of philosophy as a body of knowledge or a thing which may or may not have some utilitarian value, but rather as an activity (for example considering the nature and reality of the concept of ‘time’, which has been preoccupying me lately) that is natural for thinking people to engage in from time to time at least. (And by thinking people I mean people with a disposition to be curious.)

 

[Rhubarb]

Philosophy guides science, and science in turn informs philosophy. Philosophers of Science are often working scientists who are trying to decide on the right way to go about their science, and what their science means. A claim that science is the best way to investigate is itself a claim of epistemology - so we’re back to philosophy.

Whenever anyone finds out that I study philosophy they always end up asking “oh, what are you going to use THAT for? Teaching?” which I guess is a fair question and assumption. But philosophy teaches important skills - mostly critical thinking in a VIGOROUS way. A lot of the science majors who get involved, I find, are quick to say something like “that’s how science is” or “because science tells us so” like it’s pure unquestionable dogma. But they don’t ask the further questions - the whys and hows of their own answer. Nor what their beliefs entail. This sort of meta-questions are important, even of they’re more arcane than we necessarily need in our day to day life.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Philosophy has to matter as far as science is concerned, but especially for a philosophy of science. The very foundational principles of all science were laid down by philosophers, not scientists. Philosophers like Roger Bacon in the 13th century and Francis Bacon in the 17th century. Einstein himself said his own scientific achievements would not have been possible without a careful reference to epistemology, a branch of philosophy, not science.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I view it as a good exercise for the mind.

Better than luminosity, can’t help but improve critical thinking.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

All you have to do is follow this forum to see the need for philosophy. And it is certainly valuable as the handmaid of theology.

Linus2nd

 

[GEddie]

Because you need it to take theology in a seminary.

Those without a Church vocation don’t need it so much.

A fluency in it can help one to appear educated; but certain other disciplines, like mathematics, are more useful in that respect, while being more fun.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Tomdstone]

We hear some people say philosophy doesn’t matter because it is not useful, only confuses, and gives no evidence of progress anywhere compared to science.

How would you answer this complaint?

Many women like and appreciate feminist philosophy because it shows how women have been oppressed by men for so many centuries. And their philosophical studies show that women are much more intelligent than men in many areas.

 

[MPat]

We hear some people say philosophy doesn’t matter because it is not useful, only confuses, and gives no evidence of progress anywhere compared to science.

How would you answer this complaint?

Is it useful? Moral philosophy tells us if it is OK to punch a random stranger or to enlist in the army. It doesn’t get any more useful than that. Other options to get find out things like that would be from emotions or authority, but I doubt someone who uses such an argument will be willing to claim those options are better…

Is it confusing? Give someone who makes such claims a scientific paper (just about any of them will do), let him read something from St. Thomas Aquinas (let’s say, a part about war in the “Summa Theologica”) and ask him to say that the scientific paper is less confusing with the straight face.

And finally, philosophers do make some progress. For example, Parmenides could not explain how change can happen, but Aristotle has found a way (act and potency). Even bad philosophers make progress. For example, Marx predicted the World Revolution. It didn’t happen and Stalin has proclaimed a doctrine of “socialism in one country”, making a theory that was obviously wrong somewhat less obviously wrong. That could still count as progress. And, of course, someone who wants more progress is free to support Thomistic philosophers - abandoning things that were done previously and starting from scratch is something that makes progress harder.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Many women like and appreciate feminist philosophy because it shows how women have been oppressed by men for so many centuries. And their philosophical studies show that women are much more intelligent than men in many areas.

Hmmm. Interesting. What areas would those be?

And would you say, conversely, that men are more intelligent than women in some areas?

What areas would those be?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If it can be said that one of the purposes of philosophy is to help people learn how to think, we could argue that philosophy is needed now more than ever since people now more than ever don’t seem to know how to think.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . philosophers do make some progress. . .

I suppose the purpose of history is to make progress.
Our understanding of how the world works is growing.
Individually and as a society we hope to be improving.
Improving or progressing would involve our purpose.
We are here for a reason; we aim to get closer to its fulfillment.
So we progress towards greater knowledge and truth, greater goodness, beauty, more life.
We strive, journey towards God.

Having said that, I don’t believe newer philosphy is better philosophy.
If Aristotle grasped the essentials way back when, it would not be a matter of doing it better, but to better explain what was known then in the context of the current times.
This would be what St Thomas did. Someone like Feser tries to do that today.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Philosophy matters because it offers something neither religion nor science offer. It offers wisdom arrived at not by revelation, but by reasoning from premises to conclusions. In that sense the philosopher, if well trained and wise as he is supposed to be, is a specialist who might be called upon by the engineer, the lawyer, or the physician to have a solution to problems not solvable by the disciplines of engineering, medicine, and law. The scientist might well defer to the philosopher in matters that the scientist is not trained to address, such as for example the ethics of nuclear weapons or cloning. The philosopher will not be asked to weigh in on how nuclear weapons can be made or how we could cone human beings, but rather the benefits and risks of assuming such awesome power over the future of the race.