Value of Philosophy

[TagliatelliMonster]

Continued from here:
Objective Morality Without God



I don't intend to attack philosophy as a whole, just the majority of modern academic philosophy.



This is a great counter-argument, but not because I care about what people find intellectually stimulating. It's because the field of psychology genuinely is closely wound up in philosophy.

Contextualism influences ACT. Existentialism influences logotherapy. Determinism and naturalism both influence behaviorism.

However, I think this is more of a flaw in psychology than a benefit of philosophy. It demonstrates an ongoing problem within psychology to demonstrate and support its models empirically. Because when you can't actually demonstrate the truth of something, you BS it, and that's what most of philosophy does.



Critical thinking is fantastic! The fact that they learned critical thinking in philosophy courses is concerning. That should really be something they teach in science and history.

Then again, most of the people I know that take philosophy courses do not end up learning critical thinking from them, just as most people don't seem to learn it from science or math, either.



I really don't think confusing people into adopting nonsense like Platonic Idealism is teaching people to think in a better way. Philosophy can teach people to think better, but mostly I think it just makes poor thinkers more pretentious.



Philosophy has one of the lowest standards for peer review out of any academic discipline that I've seen. Have you read any of the rubbish being published by post-modernists?

I suppose you're right that you can't expect other philosophers to follow suite, but that's pretty much regardless of the quality of what you have to say. Only in philosophy have I seen people celebrate the lack of academic consensus as a virtue, where every attempt to build some sort of common ground is met with the incidental creation of more division in response and philosophies long considered dead are constantly resurrected. Could you imagine if scientists went back to considering miasma theory?



If you want strong ideas and truth, you turn to the natural sciences, which are in the habit of consistently debunking metaphysicians and ontologists to the point of making those entire fields of philosophy more or less irrelevant. The rest of academia has pretty much accepted naturalism, for instance; it is only the philosophers who obscure this with their diverse range of alternative metaphysical theories.

I would hardly call that a bastion of truth. It's a bastion of chaos.



Well, I'm certainly not arguing for the abolishment of philosophy! But if I was a public funder I would stop giving money to people publishing papers questioning their own existence and instead send it to food pantries and medical research.

I'll end with a synopsis of Alder's Razor: "If something cannot be settled by experiment or observation, then it is not worthy of debate"

This is because you have no grounds from which to debate from. When you do, then you are likely to be looking at science, not philosophy. Some philosophy is grounded, but the vast majority of it is not and fails this razor.

The thread title reminds me of a funny Lawrence Krauss once said in a discussion about the origins of the universe in a panel. One of the panel members was a philosopher who took serious issue with Krauss' "universe from nothing". Especially the "nothing" part.

Krauss said: "Well yea, I know that you philosophers are experts at 'nothing'... "

 

[Ella S.]

I'm realizing, in retrospect, that the premise of this thread is investigating value claims. I actually don't have much of an interest in debating values and prefer to stick with facts, so I'm probably going to dip out of the discussions here respectfully.

I think some decent points have been made. None have really shifted my own evaluation of philosophy, but that's also not something that I can debate in good faith because I don't believe that debate can lead to a better understanding of values. That is a controversial position, but it is also not a position that I can debate in good faith, either, because I have too strong of a conviction in it. This is perhaps a failing on my part.

I appreciate everyone who has added their perspective so far, though.

 

[PureX]

“The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty."
-Bertrand Russell

Yes, philosophy is more about exploring the possibilities via logical reasoning and debate than it is about seeking the truth of what is. It's the methodology, not the quest. Much the same as science is a methodology, not the quest. Or religion is a methodology, not the quest. Once we understand this, we can see the differences in the methodology, and appreciate each for it's unique advantages and limitations.

 

[wellwisher]

Philosophy is more geared to the Ego and Conscious mind. It tells of the pros of a particular approach to life and our choices. But it does not go deep enough to understand the deeper or underlying motivations for your choice of any philosophy. It stays in the intellectual shallows of analysis and justification.

If I was an Epicurean, who puts sensory pleasure above all else, I can reason this out and make it sound good. But what is inside me, that drives me to this? This takes self reflection and some knowledge of psychology. This need for pleasure could come from any number of unconscious motivations, none of which need to be conscious, for us to reason this as our choice for lifestyle. All you need to so is convince yourself and others this is a valid philosophy. One can stay in the shallows floating in ignorance.

Personally, I prefer to dive deeper and ask myself, why do I prefer this? When did this start? It is hard to be fully rational and not know the source of your motivations and perceptions. This self reflection, dives deeper through many layers, from the personal unconscious all the way to the inner self. Once you know the source you can decide if this is a stepping stone or the highest point.

Philosophy is the rational justification and explanation for perception types, but it does not go deep enough to know why you are here and not there. If you study philosophy, you can try on the differ hats to see what fits, but why it fits, is still another area of study called self reflection. The goal of the latter is to be able to use any philosophical hat, as your the spirit moves, you since it is a hat and not a head.

 

[vulcanlogician]

This is a great counter-argument, but not because I care about what people find intellectually stimulating. It's because the field of psychology genuinely is closely wound up in philosophy.

Contextualism influences ACT. Existentialism influences logotherapy. Determinism and naturalism both influence behaviorism.

However, I think this is more of a flaw in psychology than a benefit of philosophy. It demonstrates an ongoing problem within psychology to demonstrate and support its models empirically. Because when you can't actually demonstrate the truth of something, you BS it, and that's what most of philosophy does.

(Hey, I've been sick with COVID the past few days, hopefully you'll excuse my absence. I'm just rounding the bend with it. You said you were dipping out of the thread, but I think the matter has hardly been resolved. So you should stay.)

Who cares if Logotherapy was influenced by philosophy? (It was. I'll grant you that.)

Science got some of its most basic epistemological models from philosophy. To develop a theory and then look for an exception to that theory to prove it right or wrong. Mathematicians and philosophers were doing that centuries before the scientific method was articulated. The act of making an observation and then authoring a theory of reality that explains that observation is something philosophers and mathematicians can do without empiricism.

Furthermore, I think Logotherapy is a fine idea. At the very least, it's one approach that clinical psychology can use when necessary. Logotherapy involves looking at people's propensity to get lost in meaninglessness when faced with a great amount of suffering. If someone's depression is caused by a "sense of meaninglessness, brought on by copious suffering" than clinicians ought to be trained to recognize and address those causes. You speak as if any reference to philosophy that is present in a psychological idea makes that idea suspect. That is a prejudice.

(I'll respond to the rest of what you said, but give me time.)