Back to TheU.ca
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Banned Users List
Usergroups
RSS Feeds
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log inTheU.ca Forum Index - General Discussion - Philosophy. - Reply to topic
|
Since we're discussing in the Catholic Church thread the merits of Philosophy I thought I'd start it's own thread. Generally speaking I think Philosophy is useless because it cannot assume anything. While it is excellent for thought experiments therefore, its practical value is worthless and this makes any notions such as 'a ruling class of philosophers' laughable. |
|
Philosophy is useful for developing discussion and educating and countering people's own opinions. Which is a pretty good service. Even though it's useless for alot of things, it's still no more useless than other liberal arts subjects. |
|
I would argue the other ones are more practical, of which Philosophy is the most useless. But then I tend to value things in terms of practicality. So I see Sociology, Psychology, Political Science ahead of Philosophy because all three of them influence or change society as a whole. |
|
So Marx, John Locke, Adam Smith, or Aristotle didn't influence or change society? As a degree, it doesn't matter if I take major in anything, chances are I'm not going to influence or change society. So who cares? Any specific arts degree here probably won't get me into a specific career either, unless I further my education. |
|
Philosophy and Mathematics go somewhat hand-in-hand. Philosophy (done properly, not bullishly) is extremely important in advancing thought in all aspects of the arts and science. To say Philosophy is useless is moronic. Why not say Mathematics is useless while you are at it? Hey, they we can throw out all the Natural Sciences as well. Oh gee-golly. |
|
@ Edge; Marx and Smith do, I would say that Aristotle doesn't influence day to day life of human beings today. But then again, I would also argue that Marx and Smith are largely relevant not for their philosophical work, but for their economic theories. @Enmand, I don't see the connection between Philosophy or Math, nor have I ever heard anyone propose that before... could you explain what you mean? For me the difference is that Mathematics is something I will use literally every day. Philosophy, again, has no practical value to me each day. I don't go into a store and wonder what Aristotle would say about my actions, life or whatever he might chose to speak on. I do wonder what the sales are, and if the money in my pocket will cover the cost of the item I am holding. |
|
pedal2000 wrote: @ Edge;
Marx and Smith do, I would say that Aristotle doesn't influence day to day life of human beings today. But then again, I would also argue that Marx and Smith are largely relevant not for their philosophical work, but for their economic theories. @Enmand, I don't see the connection between Philosophy or Math, nor have I ever heard anyone propose that before... could you explain what you mean? For me the difference is that Mathematics is something I will use literally every day. Philosophy, again, has no practical value to me each day. I don't go into a store and wonder what Aristotle would say about my actions, life or whatever he might chose to speak on. I do wonder what the sales are, and if the money in my pocket will cover the cost of the item I am holding. You seriously don't see the connection? Have you ever taken a real math course? Besides, Philosophy and Mathematics both teach logics, and different logics systems. I'd elaborate more, but I'm busy atm. Maybe tomorrow (maybe I'll drunkenly rant. Who knows?  )
|
|
I haven't taken math since High School when I did advanced Calc. I still see no relationship between everyday philosophy and math. I might see an argument to logic, but I would assume that Philosophy borrowed the formulaic logic of today from Math rather than vice-versa. We can always pick it up next week during exam procrastination. |
|
pedal2000 wrote: For me the difference is that Mathematics is something I will use literally every day. Philosophy, again, has no practical value to me each day. I don't go into a store and wonder what Aristotle would say about my actions, life or whatever he might chose to speak on. I do wonder what the sales are, and if the money in my pocket will cover the cost of the item I am holding. Just for shits and giggles, Aristotle has a philosophy on transactions. |
|
Jimmy Big Ears
X-talk mobster  Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 3256 Location: St. Francis Xavier University    votes: 38 View user's profile |
Political Science doesn't influence as much as some people think, although it isn't without influence. Some politicians have been Poli Sci majors, but a lot either weren't or if they were it didn't unlock the secret to being successful and they took it because they were already drawn to politics. Philosophy majors, for the record, have a good track record on problem-based exams such as the GMAT so I tend to think it is good for something. The stereotype of the philosophy student isn't all wrong though. I had a debate with a philosophy major over whether uselessness could be a quantity; it took me a while to realize that he really meant whether it was a quantity that denoted something different from lack of usefulness. History I would put well ahead of Sociology or most others, with the possible exception of Psychology and Economics which are not really liberal arts subjects. Without reading about and discussing the events in the past you have no idea what comes in the future; it is not a great predictor but it is the only real one we have. For example, anyone who read anything on post WWI Germany ought to have known that when you remove the recognized head of the government you often remove people's identities as part of that country and you cannot just grant that recognized authority to a government of your own creation. Iraq was a good modern example that showed effects very similar to Germany after the forced abdication of the Kaiser. As for other examples, knowing that political issues were so different 100 years ago can give one the perspective to see beyond the current spectrum; knowing how quickly morals can slide from historical examples lets one see the details behind the danger of letting important rules and principles slide. On Iraq,I am not saying that Bush would definitely have been much different had he known some history but the consequences of severe historical ignorance were thoroughly on display in Iraq. Another example that occurs is his reference to the campaign against Al-Qaeda as a 'crusade', incredibly unaware of how the word would play in the Muslim world. PS Pedal, Bertrand Russell once worked to try to show that most mathematical operations could also be expressed in logic, and logic originates with Aristotle and company ( I do not remember if it goes back to Plato, but it definitely existed during ancient Greece). _________________ "Ah, sleek vigilant puma. Principal of the mountains." -Seymour Skinner. |
|
I'm sure he does, but just because one talks about something doesn't make it part of your subject (in my opinion). He, although I haven't read it so I am making a guess, likely talks about social interactions rather than the practical value exchange value? Another alternative could be said that he might be acting as an economist rather than a philosopher. Adam Smith did Sociological writings although they are largely blotted out by his economic works. |
|
It's funny because philosophy is seen as useless, even though it has divisions that delve into and are affected by psychology, economics, history, political science, sociology, physics. Maybe it's useless in the way a jack of all trades is useless in a particular trade. But generally the jack of all trades is quite useful. pedal2000 wrote: He, although I haven't read it so I am making a guess, likely talks about social interactions rather than the practical value exchange value?
Another alternative could be said that he might be acting as an economist rather than a philosopher. Adam Smith did Sociological writings although they are largely blotted out by his economic works. Ahhh....proportionate justice in transactions. You can use it for economics. But I just mentioned it for a gag. |
|
I don't think Philosophy can be particularly useful in a jack of all trades way. Actually I would argue Business is the most jack of all trades, followed by Political Science if you wanted to look at the 'number of jobs' one could eventually go into. I guess useless is the wrong word, I recognize that Philosophy has contributions to make, but I reject that these contributions will be in a practical everyday manner. So where an economic theory might change the way that people interact everyday in the market place, or a new theory of how the brain works might change the way Children are taught, philosophy doesn't provide these things. |
|
Jimmy Big Ears wrote: History I would put well ahead of Sociology or most others, with the possible exception of Psychology and Economics which are not really liberal arts subjects. I just, don't even know where to start with this. No wait. i know. This thread is about Philosophy and I do not want you to yank it into the realm of Majors fighting over whose major gives them the biggest E-peen. Contribute or GTFO. |
|
How is PHIL much different from studying political ideas or theories in polisci? I agree that business is a pretty useful degree, but mainly because grads are generally being hired by businesses, so it's a natural advantage. Not because you're good at everything. lol Here, time to do some penile comparison of our degrees. haha http://www.iupui.edu/~philosop/gre.htm |
|
pedal2000 wrote: I don't think Philosophy can be particularly useful in a jack of all trades way. Actually I would argue Business is the most jack of all trades, followed by Political Science if you wanted to look at the 'number of jobs' one could eventually go into.
I guess useless is the wrong word, I recognize that Philosophy has contributions to make, but I reject that these contributions will be in a practical everyday manner. So where an economic theory might change the way that people interact everyday in the market place, or a new theory of how the brain works might change the way Children are taught, philosophy doesn't provide these things. Mathematics is the "jack of all trades". Most things can be traced back to Mathematics in some way. Mathematics and Philosophy have the same foundation (that of logic). Can you seriously not see how Mathematics and Philosophy don't go together? Dan |
|
You've never heard that math and philosophy are related? Really? May I recommend Math 277, or Math 4something something, that one is mathematical logic. |
|
It isn't that they don't go together, I see all of the subjects interlinked into some degree, but if they 'went together' I would seem them grouped under a single subject rather than split. Economics and Mathematics go together, Physics and Mathematics do too, why do we split them apart? Because we've specified they're different things. (In these cases, pure Mathematics is the basis for both) Just because they both use logic now, doesn't mean they're intricately connected (imo). I would see it more as a Political Science-Economics connection, where the first might discuss trade relations and trade balances in general broad terms, whereas the other gets into the nitty gritty. Then again, I also found Formal philosophical logic to be extremely impractical. It does work, but the amount of time and effort involved to determine the truth or falsity of a statement makes it impossible to use in a world where anything wants to get done. I found informal much more practical in that sense because it can be applied (and is) by everyone everyday when they weigh the truth of statements. Bah, I have to finish this paper, maybe someone else will take up the torch of Philosophy bashing for the next few hours 
|
|
Chesty LaRue
X-Talk Pervert  Joined: 05 Jul 2006 Posts: 4166 Location: Up Yours  votes: 29 View user's profile |
It's our problem freeeeee philosophyyyyyyyy Hakuna Matata! _________________ Who said that?! |
|
pedal2000 wrote: Then again, I also found Formal philosophical logic to be extremely impractical. It does work, but the amount of time and effort involved to determine the truth or falsity of a statement makes it impossible to use in a world where anything wants to get done. I found informal much more practical in that sense because it can be applied (and is) by everyone everyday when they weigh the truth of statements. False. |
TheU.ca Forum Index - General Discussion - Philosophy. - Reply to topic
