Philosophy, a Help or a Hindrance?

[jomifl]

Recently the thoughts of philosophers have been brought into discussions concerning morality and related issues on this site. Do these make a positive conrtibution or are they a side issue that just distracts from the point of a question? Is there any evidence that philosophy has improved the lot of mankind or is it just cerebral game playing?

[jake-the-peg]

Well philosophers like Francis Bacon established the principles of scientific investigation - OK I'm biased but I'd say that probably makes him one of the most important philosphers of all time.

Other philosophers like Hobbes and Locke were a profound influence on the men that wrote the US constitution - whether you think that improved mankind's lot probably depends on your viewpoint.

And then you have people like Rousseau who's views radically altered the way we think about nature and the environment - the environmental movement can probably be traced back to him.

I think you could also trace back ideas in the judicial system like what constitutes proof and criminal justice to certain philosophers too but I'm not really knowledgeable enough in that area

[Clanad]

When you get down to it, philosophy governs everything we do or accomplish. In fact science is governed by philosphy. Before you jump on that... let me explain that science is data only, no? The interpretation of that data is what actually drives the science, and the interpretation relies on ones philosophy.

Ones philosphy can be inherent or a result of life altering events, but everyone has a philosophy, admitted or not. Some including yours truly tend to use a different term to express that philosophy ('world-view') but it's still philosophy, in the vein of Miletus[i or [i]Anaximander]...

[jake-the-peg]

Hmm but to get a bit sylogistic

If philosophy underpins all that we do that doesn't mean that all philosophy is inherently important.

[Zacs-Master]

Also, do a bit of reserach on Confucius or K’ung Ch’iu and see how his philosophy, which was very unpopular with the ruling warlords at the time, was used to change the political and physical landscape of 5th C BC China.

[mibn2cweus]

Philosophy attempts (or should at least) to answer our most fundamental questions that underpins everything we ask, know and believe. What is the nature of reality? Who/what are we and why are we here? What is knowledge and how do we know what we know with certainty as opposed to what we believe? What should we believe and why?

Philosophy is essentially the operating system our mind uses to discriminate fantasy from reality, truth from fiction, reason from fallacy, and imagination from possibility and to determine which is which and why these distinctions are important and crucial. As Clanad pointed out, we all have one whether we inherit it from our upbringing or arrive at it through mindful deliberation. The question is not whether we have a philosophy but rather whether we choose to examine it to learn what our philosophy is and how closely it corresponds to the reality it is intended to help us comprehend and understand.

[Clanad]

To wax philosphical... I think you're partially right, jake... I would maintain, however, one only has a base philosophy... a core, if you will, that is only changed or altered by significant events. Therefore, the minor disagreement with your syllogism is that one's philosophy can be expressed in several differing ways or modes, but still emanates from the underlying base... (in my intended precis )...

[sandyRoe]

Boethius wrote of the consolations to be found in philosophy. There might be something in it.

[jomifl]

Thanks for your replies so far, philosophy is a foggy land far,far away as far as I am concerned so any blowing away of the mists of ignorance is helpful.

[mibn2cweus]

//Thanks for your replies so far, philosophy is a foggy land far,far away as far as I am concerned so any blowing away of the mists of ignorance is helpful.//

There is plenty of that sort going around as well should you allow yourself to be lead astray. Another's alleged knowledge is of no more value to you than that which you are able to glean through your own comprehension and understanding of it.

[mibn2cweus]

...led astray. ;o)

[thenry]

Notice the philosophers - the ones that write so much crap you can't be bothered to read it to the end !

[jake-the-peg]

A man who starts threads with quotes from Philip Larkin has the nerve to post this ^

Well maybe his ma and da F'd him up!

[mibn2cweus]

To paraphrase, "“Philosophy is nobody’s business except the philosopher's, and everybody else can...” ;o)

[vetuste_ennemi]

I’m assuming you’re using the word philosophy in its academic sense, Jom, i.e. reasoning about the causes and principles of those things which exist in the mental or spiritual domain. The answer to your question is Yes, it is useful and No, it is not a hindrance. It’s about thinking clearly, trying to understand why we think and act as we do. It allows us to discriminate between good and bad explanations. I’ll cite two of the best questions in the R&S section, both of which were subsequently and disappointingly trivialised by their authors. Sandy Roe asked a question about internment without trial in NI. This brought some very good answers (the facile screed which the saintly Sandy nominated as best answer was not one of those). Clear thinking doesn’t give a final answer to what is right or wrong here, but it does make it clear what the issues are, say that we have two different values which seem to conflict, such that to serve one entails denying the other. Here we are in familiar philosophical territory – the conflict between liberty and duty, the extent to which the state can coerce in the face of perceived threats to itself, the rights of minorites etc. We will probably never be able to answer all these questions convincingly to everybody’s or even anybody’s satisfaction, but at least we won’t make decisions based on ignorance and prejudice. The more recent was the question about moral relativism raised by the consonantly challenged JohnySid. Ethics has been a prime concern of philosophy going back to Plato. What do we mean by right and wrong? Why do we make moral judgments? How do we justify them? The philosophers are still arguing about that, but that argument and its perpetuation are good things, not hindrances and distractions. So far we’ve had some good answers, but no perfect ones. They are all trying to establish an objective basis for morals. Thus far they’ve had limited success, but there is one piece of good news. Whatever validates a moral judgment it is not an external Authority. To quote a paraphrase of Socrates’ question in Plato’s Euthyphro: is it right because the gods say so, or do the gods say it because it is right? That was written 2400 years ago and the unanswerable dilemma it raises trashes all the religious humbug about God’s commandments and the will of Allah (not to mention JohnySid).
So philosophy offers a method of getting on in the world using reason and discourse. It helps protect us against the spurious claims of authoritarians. And for those reasons I commend the motion to this house.

[sandyRoe]

And still they gazed and still the wonder grew <br/> That heads so small could hold all that they knew

[mibn2cweus]

//And still they gazed and still the wonder grew <br/> That heads so small could hold all that they knew//

Been pokin' around in your hard drive again, Sandy?

[sandyRoe]

No. That comment was a sort of backhanded compliment to all that loiter with intent in R&S.
Had I known the strength, and the ferocity, of the opposition to be found there I never would have darkened its doorstep.

[mibn2cweus]

In the quest for knowledge it is what we already believe we know that presents the greatest stumbling block. Knowledge can never fill the shoes of understanding, the standard by which personal knowledge is measured and the only guide to be trusted to keep us on the path to greater wisdom.

[jomifl]

Thanks VE, I did mean philosphy in the academic sense, I had assumed that it was the default meaning of the word. I have always tried to cut through the cr@p though I don't succed as often as I would wish to but I have at time got the impression that at least some philosophers (don't ask me who) overcomplicate issues. The conflict between liberty and duty for example is possibly a false conflict as all decisions must depend upon circumstances not absolutes. From this it is obvious that I don't think such things as moral values can ever be absolute.

[jomifl]

Mibs, The percieved 'knowledge' of theists certainly obstructs their ability to acquire further knowledge since they are dependant on knowledge being fed to them by a deity. If that deity doesn't exist they are stymied.