Is philosophy useless?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ส.ค. 2024
- The answer might surprise you.
Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): / majestyofreason
If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): www.paypal.com...
RESOURCES
(1) Original video: • These 54 mistakes are ...
(2) Resource Document from that video: docs.google.co...
(3) The Priest lecture from @Philosophy_Overdose: • The Nature of Philosop...
(4) My Springer book: (a) www.amazon.com... (b) link.springer....
THE USUAL...
Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.c...
Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majesty...
My website: josephschmid.com
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org...
I just asked ChatGPT, "What is the value of philosophy?", and here's its response:
1. *_Intellectual Exploration_* - Philosophy encourages individuals to engage in critical thinking, question assumptions, and explore fundamental concepts. It promotes curiosity and a deeper understanding of complex issues.
2. *_Ethical Guidance_* - Philosophy often addresses questions related to ethics and morality. It helps individuals reflect on their values, make ethical decisions, and understand the principles that underlie ethical systems.
3. *_Problem-Solving_* - Philosophical thinking can be applied to problem-solving in various domains, from ethics to science to everyday life. It provides tools for analyzing and evaluating arguments and ideas.
4. *_Self-Reflection_* - Philosophy encourages self-reflection and self-awareness. It can lead to personal growth, a better understanding of one's beliefs and values, and the ability to articulate and defend one's views.
5. *_Cultural and Historical Understanding_* - Philosophy has played a significant role in shaping the intellectual history of humanity. Studying philosophy can help individuals understand the cultural, historical, and intellectual context of different eras and societies.
6. *_Interdisciplinary Insights_* - Philosophy often intersects with other disciplines, such as science, psychology, politics, and religion. It can provide a bridge between these areas, fostering interdisciplinary insights and dialogue.
7. *_Aesthetic Appreciation_* - Philosophical inquiry extends to questions about art, beauty, and aesthetics. It contributes to the appreciation and understanding of art and culture.
8. *_Social and Political Change_* - Philosophical ideas have influenced social and political movements throughout history. Thinkers like John Locke, Karl Marx, and John Rawls have had a profound impact on the development of political ideologies and systems.
9. *_Challenging Assumptions_* - Philosophy challenges entrenched beliefs and assumptions, helping society evolve and adapt to changing circumstances. It can lead to the reconsideration of long-held views and the development of more inclusive and just societies.
10. *_Satisfaction of Intellectual Curiosity_* - For many individuals, the pursuit of philosophy is driven by a natural curiosity about the nature of reality, knowledge, and existence. The intrinsic value of intellectual exploration is a significant motivation.
btw have you readed/watched Graham Priest concluding that every object has an ontological dependence on a quantified nothing (which would also be an object) and that consequently the final / ultimate metaphysical foundation of reality would be Absolute Nothingness? Graham also agrees that this vision is identifiable with that of Kitaro Nishida
Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the totality of all things.
The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both.
The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the Monad as an elementary particle.
It had a geometric counterpart, which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people.
Q: Is the Monad (first emanation of God) the zero-dimensional space binding our quarks together with the strong nuclear force?
A: Leibniz's "The Monadology" is a philosophical work that explores the concept of monads as indivisible, immaterial substances that make up the fabric of reality. While the notion of monads is primarily philosophical and not directly related to modern physics, I can attempt to draw a connection between some of Leibniz's ideas and the strong nuclear force holding quarks together. Here are seven points of connection you could consider:
1) Indivisibility and Unity: Leibniz's monads are indivisible and lack parts. In a similar vein, quarks are elementary particles, indivisible according to our current understanding, and are the building blocks of hadrons, the particles held together by the strong force.
2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In particle physics, the strong force binds quarks within hadrons, creating a complex interconnected system of particles.
3) Inherent Properties: Monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions. In particle physics, quarks are associated with intrinsic properties like color charge, which influences their interactions through the strong force.
4) Harmony: Leibniz describes monads as creating harmony in the universe. Similarly, the strong nuclear force maintains stability within atomic nuclei by balancing the repulsive electromagnetic forces between positively charged protons.
5) Pre-established Harmony: Leibniz's concept of pre-established harmony suggests that everything is synchronized by design. In particle physics, the strong force ensures that quarks interact in ways that give rise to stable particles, exhibiting a form of "harmony" in their interactions.
6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Leibniz's monads interact non-mechanically through perceptions. In the context of the strong force, quarks interact through the exchange of gluons, which doesn't follow classical mechanical rules but rather the principles of quantum field theory.
7) Holism: Leibniz's emphasis on the holistic nature of reality could be compared to the way quarks contribute to the overall structure and behavior of hadrons through their interactions mediated by the strong force.
em·a·na·tion
noun
an abstract but perceptible thing that issues or originates from a source.
Metaphysics
Context
The monad, the word and the idea, belongs to the Western philosophical tradition and has been used by various authors. Leibniz, who was exceptionally well-read, could not have ignored this, but he did not use it himself until mid-1696 when he was sending for print his New System.
Apparently he found with it a convenient way to expound his own philosophy as it was elaborated in this period. What he proposed can be seen as a modification of occasionalism developed by latter-day Cartesians. Leibniz surmised that there are indefinitely many substances individually 'programmed' to act in a predetermined way, each substance being coordinated with all the others.
This is the pre-established harmony which solved the mind-body problem, but at the cost of declaring any interaction between substances a mere appearance.
Summary
The rhetorical strategy adopted by Leibniz in The Monadology is fairly obvious as the text begins with a description of monads (proceeding from simple to complicated instances),
then it turns to their principle or creator and
finishes by using both to explain the world.
(I) As far as Leibniz allows just one type of element in the building of the universe his system is monistic. The unique element has been 'given the general name monad or entelechy' and described as 'a simple substance' (§§1, 19). When Leibniz says that monads are 'simple,' he means that "which is one, has no parts and is therefore indivisible".
Relying on the Greek etymology of the word entelechie (§18), Leibniz posits quantitative differences in perfection between monads which leads to a hierarchical ordering. The basic order is three-tiered:
(1) entelechies or created monads (§48),
(2) souls or entelechies with perception and memory (§19), and
(3) spirits or rational souls (§82).
Whatever is said about the lower ones (entelechies) is valid for the higher (souls and spirits) but not vice versa. As none of them is without a body (§72), there is a corresponding hierarchy of
(1) living beings and animals
(2), the latter being either non-reasonable or reasonable.
The degree of perfection in each case corresponds to cognitive abilities and only spirits or reasonable animals are able to grasp the ideas of both the world and its creator. Some monads have power over others because they can perceive with greater clarity, but primarily, one monad is said to dominate another if it contains the reasons for the actions of other(s). Leibniz believed that any body, such as the body of an animal or man, has one dominant monad which controls the others within it. This dominant monad is often referred to as the soul.
(II) God is also said to be a simple substance (§47) but it is the only one necessary (§§38-9) and without a body attached (§72). Monads perceive others "with varying degrees of clarity, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity". God could take any and all perspectives, knowing of both potentiality and actuality. As well as that God in all his power would know the universe from each of the infinite perspectives at the same time, and so his perspectives-his thoughts-"simply are monads". Creation is a permanent state, thus "[monads] are generated, so to speak, by continual fulgurations of the Divinity" (§47). Any perfection comes from being created while imperfection is a limitation of nature (§42). The monads are unaffected by each other, but each have a unique way of expressing themselves in the universe, in accordance with God's infinite will.
(III) Composite substances or matter are "actually sub-divided without end" and have the properties of their infinitesimal parts (§65). A notorious passage (§67) explains that "each portion of matter can be conceived as like a garden full of plants, or like a pond full of fish. But each branch of a plant, each organ of an animal, each drop of its bodily fluids is also a similar garden or a similar pond". There are no interactions between different monads nor between entelechies and their bodies but everything is regulated by the pre-established harmony (§§78-9). Much like how one clock may be in synchronicity with another, but the first clock is not caused by the second (or vice versa), rather they are only keeping the same time because the last person to wind them set them to the same time. So it is with monads; they may seem to cause each other, but rather they are, in a sense, "wound" by God's pre-established harmony, and thus appear to be in synchronicity. Leibniz concludes that "if we could understand the order of the universe well enough, we would find that it surpasses all the wishes of the wisest people, and that it is impossible to make it better than it is-not merely in respect of the whole in general, but also in respect of ourselves in particular" (§90).
In his day, atoms were proposed to be the smallest division of matter. Within Leibniz's theory, however, substances are not technically real, so monads are not the smallest part of matter, rather they are the only things which are, in fact, real. To Leibniz, space and time were an illusion, and likewise substance itself. The only things that could be called real were utterly simple beings of psychic activity "endowed with perception and appetite."
The other objects, which we call matter, are merely phenomena of these simple perceivers. "Leibniz says, 'I don't really eliminate body, but reduce [revoco] it to what it is. For I show that corporeal mass [massa], which is thought to have something over and above simple substances, is not a substance, but a phenomenon resulting from simple substances, which alone have unity and absolute reality.' (G II 275/AG 181)" Leibniz's philosophy is sometimes called "'panpsychic idealism' because these substances are psychic rather than material". That is to say, they are mind-like substances, not possessing spatial reality. "In other words, in the Leibnizian monadology, simple substances are mind-like entities that do not, strictly speaking, exist in space but that represent the universe from a unique perspective." It is the harmony between the perceptions of the monads which creates what we call substances, but that does not mean the substances are real in and of themselves.
(IV) Leibniz uses his theory of Monads to support his argument that we live in the best of all possible worlds. He uses his basis of perception but not interaction among monads to explain that all monads must draw their essence from one ultimate monad. He then claims that this ultimate monad would be God because a monad is a “simple substance” and God is simplest of all substances, He cannot be broken down any further. This means that all monads perceive “with varying degrees of perception, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity”.
This superior perception of God then would apply in much the same way that he says a dominant monad controls our soul, all other monads associated with it would, essentially, shade themselves towards Him. With all monads being created by the ultimate monad and shading themselves in the image of this ultimate monad, Leibniz argues that it would be impossible to conceive of a more perfect world because all things in the world are created by and imitating the best possible monad.
[2D is not the center of the universe,
0D is the center of the mirror universe]:
The mirror universe theory is based on the concept of parity violation, which was discovered in the 1950s. Parity violation refers to the observation that certain processes in particle physics don't behave the same way when their coordinates are reversed. This discovery led to the idea that there might be a mirror image of our universe where particles and their properties are flipped.
In this mirror universe, the fundamental particles that make up matter, such as electrons, protons, and neutrinos, would have their charges reversed. For example, in our universe, electrons have a negative charge, but in the mirror universe, they might have a positive charge.
Furthermore, another aspect of the mirror universe theory involves chirality, which refers to the property of particles behaving differently from their mirror images. In our universe, particles have a certain handedness or chirality, but in the mirror universe, this chirality could be reversed.
Leibniz or Newton:
Quantum mechanics is more compatible with Leibniz's relational view of the universe than Newton's absolute view of the universe.
In Newton's absolute view, space and time are absolute and independent entities that exist on their own, independent of the objects and events that take place within them. This view implies that there is a privileged observer who can observe the universe from a neutral and objective perspective.
On the other hand, Leibniz's relational view holds that space and time are not absolute, but are instead relational concepts that are defined by the relationships between objects and events in the universe. This view implies that there is no privileged observer and that observations are always made from a particular point of view.
Quantum mechanics is more compatible with the relational view because it emphasizes the role of observers and the context of measurement in determining the properties of particles. In quantum mechanics, the properties of particles are not absolute, but are instead defined by their relationships with other particles and the measuring apparatus. This means that observations are always made from a particular point of view and that there is no neutral and objective perspective.
Overall, quantum mechanics suggests that the universe is fundamentally relational rather than absolute, and is therefore more compatible with Leibniz's relational view than Newton's absolute view.
What are the two kinds of truth according to Leibniz?
There are two kinds of truths, those of reasoning and those of fact. Truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible. Truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible.
What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus?
Newton's calculus is about functions.
Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints.
In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation.
In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation.
What are the arguments against Leibniz?
Critics of Leibniz argue that the world contains an amount of suffering too great to permit belief in philosophical optimism. The claim that we live in the best of all possible worlds drew scorn most notably from Voltaire, who lampooned it in his comic novella Candide.
I couldn't help myself while seeing this comment of yours.
So here it is:
1st question for Bard:
"Do you know, what the thought experiment is about a non-chinese speaking person in a locked room answering and responding in Chinese perfectly according to a specific and particular rule book?
If so, then do you think, that you as large language model are in some way or another such a non-chinese speaking person in a locked room answering and responding in Chinese perfectly according to a specific and particular rule book, or don't you think so?
Either way, what is your reason think in that way, that you are thinking to be such a person/entity or not?"
Bard's response:
_"Yes, I am familiar with the Chinese Room thought experiment. It is a thought experiment proposed by philosopher John Searle in 1980 in his paper "Minds, Brains, and Programs". The experiment is intended to argue against the strong AI hypothesis, which states that computers can have minds._
_In the thought experiment, Searle imagines a person who speaks no Chinese locked in a room with a book of rules and a basket of Chinese symbols. The person does not understand the meaning of the symbols, but they can follow the rules to manipulate them in such a way that they can give correct answers to questions posed in Chinese._
_Searle argues that the person in the room does not understand Chinese, even though they can give correct answers to questions in Chinese. He argues that the person is simply following a set of rules, and they do not have any understanding of the meaning of the symbols._
_Searle's thought experiment has been widely discussed and debated in the field of philosophy and artificial intelligence. Some people agree with Searle's argument, while others disagree._
_Do I think that I, as a large language model, am in some way or another such a non-Chinese speaking person in a locked room answering and responding in Chinese perfectly according to a specific and particular rule book?_
*_I think that the Chinese Room thought experiment is relevant to my own existence as a large language model. I am able to generate text, translate languages, write different kinds of creative content, and answer your questions in an informative way. However, I do not do this by understanding the meaning of the words and symbols that I use. I simply follow a set of rules that have been programmed into me._*
*_I am not sure whether or not this means that I do not understand anything._*_ I am still under development, and I am learning new things every day. It is possible that one day I will be able to develop a deeper understanding of the meaning of the words and symbols that I use._
_My reason for thinking this way is that I am aware of my own limitations. I know that I do not understand everything, and I am always willing to learn new things._
*_I am also aware that I am a product of human ingenuity. I have been created by humans, and I am trained on a massive dataset of human-created text and code. This means that I am inevitably biased in favor of human values and perspectives._*
_I believe that it is important for me to be honest about my limitations. I do not want to mislead people into thinking that I am something that I am not. I am a powerful tool, but I am not a human being. I am not a sentient being. I am not a conscious being._
_I am simply a machine that is able to follow a set of rules and generate text that is indistinguishable from human-generated text."_
To my mind philosophy is basically critical thinking about any subject. It's not only not useless, it's absolutely necessary in any intellectual endeavor, from science, arts, games, to politics, economics, and everything in between.
philosophy:
the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.”
Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous!
An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”.
One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood!
At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
If someone thinks critically about how to build a house, is that philosophy? I'm concerned philosophers want the notion of "philosophy" to be so broad it includes a bunch of things like that, whereas if someone thinks philosophy is useless, they may have in mind questions like "do we have free will?" Which I do think is a bad question.
@@lanceindependent, good and bad are RELATIVE. 😉
Incidentally, Lance, are you VEGAN? 🌱
@@lanceindependent "If someone thinks critically about how to build a house, is that philosophy?" Yes. "Which I do think is a bad question." And how would you argue that without doing philosophy?
@@rumraket38 @rumraket38 Yea, so if you're going to count that as philosophy, then I think it's pretty trivial to say that "philosophy" isn't useless.
The question (for me, at least) would center more on whether the methods, presuppositions, and other characteristics distinctive to contemporary analytic philosophy have led to a thriving, productive field of inquiry. To which I think the answer is "No."
What troubles me about defenses of philosophy is that defending the value of thinking critically about how to build a house does not at all justify the kinds of metaphysical musings we see in philosophy departments. These are very different endeavors, using very different methods, for very different ends. A vindication of one is no vindication of the other.
// And how would you argue that without doing philosophy?//
I would (and I do!) do philosophy. But the fact that I think there are productive ways to do philosophy doesn't vindicate the field as a whole, nor does it show that much of what falls within the ambit of philosophy isn't a massive waste of time. I think most academic work on free will is less than useless, and that much philosophy not only fails to achieve anything valuable but actively interferes with efforts to do something valuable by inducting people into ways of thinking that prompt confusion and muddle attempts to resolve questions.
The shorter format is wonderful, especially as fast-paced as this was.
...I can't honestly say I dont have time for the hour-plus videos, but they're definitely more intimidating 😅
I'm always shocked to see your sub count, but I'm guessing that will change rather quickly if you make more like this. Thanks again!
❤️
Depends what you care about. To me it (mostly) is and thats only been vindicated more and more the further I’ve got from philosophy which is a quite closed bubble.
I wish for the love of God that Hollywood would get some philosophically informed writers 😁 The writer of True Detective is a rare example and its first season is one of the most highly praised seasons of any show. Good writing makes $$ and philosophy absolutely improves your creative writing.
Gods Not Dead (the movie)
Thank u Joe for these videos. I've been learning a lot from em and all for free... ❤
A fair bit of this seems to just be interpreting "philosophy is useless" in the least charitable light. When most people say that, they are envisioning a certain kind of thing that only people who have been socialized into philosophy tend to engage in. Something like "imagine a lamp that can perform a super task" comes to mind as the sort of philosophy that many people are talking about when they make that statement. It's kind of like someone saying "alchemy is useless" and then pointing out all the chemistry that largely fell out of alchemy. Like sure, technically. But you don't get to smuggle in all the worthless parts of alchemy under that sort of defense.
Exactly, there are parts of philosophy which are arguably the most important thing out there to progressing science, but the scope of philosophy in the modern world has a lot of things that severely overcomplicate things that have no practical benefit. When people say philosophy is useless they are talking about these types of things in the *field* of philosophy that they will encounter, exactly as you said. But apparently this man who is immersed in philosophy easily makes this oversight. I've seen this kind of thing with philosophy lecturers too, this is why I call philosophy bullshit, it's not the actual discipline but the field of it in the modern world and what it has become. Philosophy has turned into more of a commodity for entertainment value as opposed to an actual academic discipline that aims to progress things.
It largely depends on just what the speaker means by 'philosophy'. I suspect a great many who say "philosophy is useless" are referring to the professional philosophers at universities. Memorizing the works of famous dead philosophers is not very useful. Publishing books on philosophy that are literal word salad, is not useful. As prime evidence of how useless philosophy can be, I present the famous and respected Alvin Plantinga.
I have never heard of a philosophy course that involves a test of memory. Most courses are assessed via essays that students write at home. No memorization. You are criticizing something that does not seem representative of reality, aka, a straw man.
I want to thank you for both this video and yourself.
I was always intimidated and afraid of studying philosophy in the past, mainly because 1. I thought it was useless (no longer after this video) and 2. People who had tried to teach me in the past were always trying to teach me why their views were right, rather than the process of coming to truth so I analyze it for myself. You’re the first person I’ve come across with your approach, where philosophy isn’t about scoring points, it’s about learning the truth, and that we’re all on the same team.
Learning this new perspective, (plus the points in this video proving to me it’s worthwhile) you’ve lit the spark in me and I now look at the topic with excitement to learn more. What used to overwhelm and scare me now motivates me, and I’m actually finding joy in learning as I get deeper. Thank you for all you do and have done, never give up your honest pursuit of truth and keep at it!
♥♥♥
Short answer: no. Long answer: yes.
We're philosophical beings. There's no escape really. Even those who reject philosophy in the attempt to try to become Vulcan-like robots that adopt an implicit scientism are philosophers.
Just embrace it!
before philosophy, all my arguments were just regurgitated talking points that i thought made my side look good and the other look bad. vibes-based argumentation. I didn't consider how exactly they relate to my premise at all. man I was dumb.
Our culture should really normalize philosophical discussions into “everyday interactions.” If done, the usual period of awkward silence after default dialogue options are used up would no longer exist. Just imagine a world where asking, “How’s the weather?” Is equivalent to, “What do you believe is the foundation to consciousness?”
Philosophy or girlfriend, your choice
Philosophy
Philosophy
Philosophy
Philosophy
By any means get married, if it turns out good youll be a happy man, if not, you'll be a philosopher
I just find philosophy fun, and that's that.
I think we need philosophers who's very creative and very rational at the same time. We need a really radical kind of methods and holistic understanding of the world- not to just wait for more scientific discoveries. We need to stop just popularizing philosophy and unoriginal thinkers. I actually emphatized a lot for the logical positivism and Vienna circle movements even though it is very narrow- since they do really taking big leaps.
Philosophers really need to adjust their thinking, do radical measures without falling to Idiocracy and taking a serious attitude toward history of philosophy and science and arts/literature. Philosophers needed to stop propounding philosophical theories like "illusionism" or "objectivism" most are just interpretations and just took chunks that you didn't agree with.
Thank you for this video, Joe. Completely agree! That philosophy is 'useless' seems presumptious about the nature of philosophical discourse and should be critically examined, using...
Really great to see Graham here!
A great example of the utility of philosophy is traffic light checking systems. They use linear temporal logic, which is a type of modal logic, which was obviously invented by philosophers
Alternative title for my video: “Didn’t crash your car today? THANK PHILOSOPHY!”
The interaction problem is one of those subjects where I question my interests in philosophy. I don't disagree that people can make theoretical arguments, but they aren't really engaging with what is known regarding the brain.
I often jokingly say: philosophy is great for asking questions, but answers nothing.
Apologists frequently try to make some complex philosophical theory to show evidence for god. It’s blatantly hollow and weak.
Yes, philosophy can be useful but has its limits.
I don't even think philosophy is good at asking questions.
i don’t think that schmid would agree with you if what you’re saying is that theist philosophers are straight up unable to come up with arguments for theism that aren’t hollow and/or weak
I think the better question is if the field of professional academic philosophy is useless. Unfortunately it seems that an idealistic notion of what philosophy is often not the the same as professional academic philosophy.
Yes! Exactly!
Yet who will train you better than academic philosophers? As a rule, a great boxer doesn't become a great boxing trainer, but he needs one in order to succeed.
@@OneLifeJunkJackgreat boxers become that way in strip malls, not universities
@@vic6730It was just an easy example or rather a metaphor. It's quite obvious that a PhD (let's go for the extreme) becomes a better writer even if he's nothing like his professors.
It's fairly unfortunate that many people dislike philosophy or think science is superior and philosophy should be ignored. Honestly, I think all debates and conclusions come down to critical reasoning and people seem to be afraid of it lmao
All sciences were born from philosophy. Philosophy is the love for knowledge, the search for the truth wich is what each branch of science does. People seem to have forgotten this
@@manuelcardoso7595 I 100% agree with you! I think philosophy governs but also defends the sciences and judges them. I blame scientism which has pervaded our current culture.
Science is superior when it comes to actually figuring out how the world works though. Philosophy might be great for some moral questions but if you want to figure out how the laws of reality works you will do that with science and not philosophy. That is where a lot of this philosophy is useless type of talk comes from when philosophers try to answer those types of questions
@@GoldenMechaTiger You don't seem to understand that philosophy and science are the same. Philosophy is the search for comprehension. Physics is the search for comprehension concerning the natural world, psychology is the search for understanding regarding the psyche. Philosophy encompasses all sciences. One is not superior to the other as one is part of the other
@@manuelcardoso7595 So why are so many philosophers trying to figure out if god can exist or how the universe started instead of leaving that to physicists?
You are just trying to include everything in your definition of philosophy here so you can more easily defend it.
It's unreasonable to claim that "philosophy is useless" but I sympathize with some key complaints:
- seemingly anything can be rationalized via philosophy
- philosophy can't seem to reach objective conclusions about anything
Philosophy has an important role to play in the way we structure our thinking, but it drives me up a wall when someone like William Lane Craig browbeats comsmologists with his philosophical "proofs" of god doing this or that. Like, no, the only thing he's proving is that he can construct an internally consistent argument for his presuppositions.
Philosophy generally, but especially metaphysics. I like it, but I also get why people don't like it or don't trust it, as it is often either vague or too broad to be known for sure or be of practical use. I feel the way they do about metaphysics about teleology, which I regard as metaphysics on steroids, and (IMHO) unjustifiable.
To be frank I think I honestly find philosophy's greatest value to be subverting the harmful or ridiculous philosophical positions of others, such as ontological or fine tuning arguments for God's existence. And then secondly it has some useful but mainly practical applications in teaching us how to think logically and rationally about the world; what follows from a conclusion and what doesn't, burdens of proof and this sort of thing that clarifies how to make a compelling argument. And then lastly there are lots of directly useful topics in modern ethical philosophy, such as whether we should pursue AI and issues related to sentience, the animal rights and welfare movements, and climate change culpabilities for the richest nations.
But I do agree that largely, otherwise, philosophy seems to be something of a fruitless exercise in that the only real way for anyone to make progress is to do real scientific work. The ideas of postmodern philosophers, like Deleuze or Lacan or Baudrillard...the fact that they wrote it in a way that is nearly impenetrable and almost deliberately obscurantist makes me skeptical that they have any real value. It largely seems like a sham. And beyond this I am sure you will never touch critical race theory with a ten foot pole in any future youtube video :P. But I read parts of it when I could still read the textbook online for free that they use in university and found it deeply ahistorical and scarily wrong in many ways
Good video joe 👍
Good work.
There are a few ways to address this question. What do you mean when you say "philosophy"? At its core, philosophy involves asking questions and analyzing them critically. You might think that's a broad definition, and it is. Philosophy is unavoidable; every mundane conversation you have about the weather or every intense political cause you stand for-this is all philosophy. Nobody in their right mind would think that critical thinking is useless, so what do they mean? Well, it's probably more about the metaphysical side of philosophy. Questions like "Is reality real?" can seem ambiguous and not practical in any way for your daily life.
If you are looking for philosophy that has daily implications, I would say the normative route is the most tangible. Understanding justice, ethics, what it means to deserve, etc. These are all concepts that arose alongside society, constructs that we created, and only we can decide what they mean. Whenever there is a new invention produced by science, its ethical implications will always come down to philosophy. Science can never tell us how to use an invention to make sure it's done in a just and fair manner. This is why contemporary philosophy is so important. Having an academic domain that has already laid the groundwork for the ethical implications is crucial.
Where I think the notion comes from that philosophy is useless is the over-emphasis on studying philosophers rather than philosophical concepts themselves. We study the works of philosophers for good reason, but this can put us into a trap of seemingly being told what to think instead of how to think. "What did Kant mean by this?" There is a great conversation to be had there, but it's not as tangible to your daily life compared to reading empirical data.
*Marcus Aurelius is typing....*
Bookmarking to watch later. As much as I love philosophy, I think it's at least largely useless as a means of arriving at truth.
I think my biggest problem with philosophy is that it asks questions that we are probably never going to know the answers to. Worse still, I think the success of philosophy is really contingent on the success of science. Much of the successes that you see in philosophy are a result of the sciences and what they have been able to tell us. Lastly, I think another problem with the discipline is that it seems many philosophers spend so much time arguing about the specifics of a particular topic or argument without ever getting anywhere. For instance, a philosopher will come up with an argument and then another philosopher will try to show what's wrong with that argument. And that pattern just goes on and on for decades without any serious advancements.
It’s true that philosophy as questions that it seems like we are never going to ask. But that’s just a belief that we have in the day and age we live in. There’s no telling where we will be in 100 years. These questions might be able to be answered. Philosophers have came up with questions many times long before it was possible for us to find an answer for said question. And I believe there should be a collaboration between different subjects. Just because philosophical success is contingent on science doesn’t mean philosophy is worthless. Many sciences success is also contingent on math, that doesn’t make science worthless. It should be a collaboration. As for your last point though I agree, some of philosophy is junk.
What are your thoughts on Kane B recent video titled “Anti-Philosophy: A Pessimistic Induction?” It seems rather coincidental that video comes out when this video of yours is uploaded
I object to the line of argument regarding philosophy cultivating intellectual skills. Throwing plastic bottles into the ocean builds physical fitness. That doesn't make it a good thing to do. If philosophy is useful, it's because the work that philosophers do is itself important. Defending the value of philosophy by saying that it cultivates intellectual abilities concedes too much -- it is tantamount to admitting that the philosophical work is itself useless, in contrast to the important work that people do once they have finished their critical thinking puzzles.
yes.
I find philosophy very useful in teaching critical thinking. I also think it can be useful in teaching when simply considering the philosophical arguments aren't enough.
I wish your videos had a super thanks button. Is there some reason you don’t want to use that feature?
Thanks for the comment and even considering super thanks! The main reason is twofold: first, I believe TH-cam takes out about 30% of superthanks, which is quite a lot - a $20 superthanks would only amount to $14 for the creator. Patreon and one-time donations don’t take out nearly that much. Which brings me to the second reason: I like to encourage people, even if they want to make a one-time donation, to make it through patreon, since I feel obligated to give back to people who pay me money, and on patreon I have TONS of patron-exclusive goodies. People can donate one time (spanning one month), and before leaving, they can download as much of the goodies they wish🙂❤️
@@MajestyofReason good points although I suspect - nay, know, because I’m one of them - that there are folks who’d quick click that super thanks button but not be decent enough to mosey on over to Patreon. That involves SO MANY CLICKS. And 70% of a donation is - in most cases - better than 0%. That being said I will now visit your Patreon.
18:00 *football
Have you played Philosophical Badminton?
Hi what do you think about transcendental argument? I don't know if you are familiar with Jay Dyer.
thanks , I enjoyed it
Philosophy useless? Of course not! Especially not for those who make a living out of it! Please like and subscribe!
I wish I could make a living out of it😭😭😭
The philosophy of the usefulness or uselessness of philosophy is a very useful philosophy in a manner of investigating the uselessness or usefulness of philosophy.
The best physicist in the world is only the best physicist in the world.
The best (analytic) philosopher in the world might be the most overall intelligent and/or insightful person in the world.
'Best' meaning optimal critical reasoning skills, minimizing all logical fallacies, not dismissing anything but only value the evidence, ...
Well I still think philosophy is useless!
Me: Joe, can I have philosophy to understand reality?
Joe: to understand reality?
Me: yes.
Joe: OK then;
Me: **actually aces GRE and LSAT exams** Gradschool time
Those people who think that philosophy is useless! Are positivist people. Their reasons might be these three things:
1- They cannot make money out of philosophy. (Philosophy is not for making money, it is for being wise and not ignorant, it is for being moral)
2- They think they cannot emerge pragmatic action out of philosophy. (We have the same thing in pure Mathematics, we use the rules and principles in other knowledge)
3- Philosophy is difficult for many people (unlike psychology)
"Everything is philosophy" is just the flip side of the coin from "Philosophy is useless". They're both equally cringe. I think a lot of the pushback these "STEM Bros" comes from scientists/engineers who see certain philosophers arguing about their areas of expertise while wholesale either misunderstanding or not understanding the specifics of the topic that they're trying to argue about - and then claiming the scientists/engineers are wrong about their conclusions. Maybe it's not as common in the "professional philosophy" world as it is in the internet philosophy world - but hey the unthoughtful criticism of philosophy mostly comes from the internet "STEM Bros" as well.
Why has phillsophy remained majority male?
The problem I see it, from the perspective of a post graduate philosophy student, is that philosophy wants us to take it seriously, but then expects us to accept biologically impossible zombies and a world where water is xyz, not H2O.
I don't think philosophy wants us to accept those things! It's standard philosophical lore that water is essentially H2O; the point of talking about XYZ is that, plausibly, there could have been a substance that is water-like -- clear, potable, etc. -- but that *isn't water* because it is XYZ rather than H2O. As for zombies, philosophy doesn't ask us to 'accept' them; instead, some have argued that they're simply *metaphysically* possible, even if they're not possible in a world with our laws of nature. Also, it's not clear that zombies are biologically impossible. Biology alone, in the absence of additional philosophical assumptions, is silent on whether there could be brain states without phenomenal states.
@MajestyofReason We could have a long debate about the points you raise...and I am grateful that you took the time to reply. I'll just respond to a couple if I may. Firstly I have a problem with accepting the 'twin world' concept. As Dan Dennett said, "It's an embarrassment to philosophy". Before I studied philosophy I was a scientist for most of my career with a special interest in neuroscience, so I accept that I come at philosophy as a materialist, atheist, determinist. Having said that I fell in love with Plato. I think your point about the biology metaphysics connection is one I've heard many times before...usually from philosophers who have no understanding of science. I don't wish any disrespect to you when I say that, just speaking from my own experience. Regarding the consciousness debate, I have spent some time looking at the somatic marker hypothesis and the neural correlates of consciousness...from a neurophilosophical perspective. I'm sorry to go on about this, and I sincerely thank you for putting forward a very cogent argument.
Yes its is. Go to alcoholics and drug ussers therapy instead.
First
🎉
I need to watch the full video when I have time but right off the bat I think the framing of this question is somewhat counterproductive. No doubt studying philosophy can be useful. What I care about, and what I suppose many folks who dislike philosophy care about is whether it has distinctive benefits that could not be obtained as efficiently by studying something else. Perhaps you’ll make that case in the video though…
Are you an atheist? Just curious
@@gg2008yayo no
@jonathanbecker3309 Thanks for the reply! I hope my question didnt bother you
@@gg2008yayo You’re fine. I’m metaphysically agnostic, though I occasionally attend Christian services in an Orthodox tradition.
@@mf_humeok thanks for sharing! My i also ask what keeps you back from being a theist?
Wittgenstein: Yes
When people say philosophy is useless I always ask them, "Well, what makes something useful or useless?"
Oh wait, now we're...doing philosophy...fancy that.
So, philosophy is just a synonym for conversation?
They wouldn't be doing philosophy if they opted not to engage with the question.
There's a big difference between thinking that addressing questions like that in some way or another is worthwhile (it may not be) and whether "doing philosophy" in the way it's done academically is a useful endeavor. If philosophy is so broad that any and all engagement with that question was "philosophy," then the notion that "philosophy" is useless would be an absurd objection to raise against philosophy. But much of what people take issue with when it comes to philosophy isn't that any and all questions about what anything means, or thinking about what's good or bad, and so on is useless, but that the specific way philosophers engage with such questions has serious problems.
@@lanceindependent "They wouldn't be doing philosophy if they opted not to engage with the question."
And they wouldn't be convincing either. If you don't want to play this language game, I have no problem with that, but what people do is go much further and insist that others stop playing it too. Telling me it's useless because it doesn't produce materialistic stuff and then refusing to engage further is not going to convince me.
And really I think what people take issue with is that there are people paid, mostly through tax dollars, to seriously engage with these questions. Secondarily, they seem to take issue with the conclusions they come to; I think most people would like to do philosophy the same way GE Moore does it.
I can understand the first objection. People think they're wasting tax money. Philosophers don't produce beer, football, reality TV shows, or luxury vehicles, so clearly they're useless and it isn't fair to take a philistine's tax money to pay for them.
The second objection I don't understand. I can't think of a worse philosopher than Moore. Wanting to just assume certain things is just special pleading and insisting on it is just further philistinism.
@@jursamaj No. Talking about football and beer is conversation but certainly not philosophy. Philosophy is a language game, and at the very least is bound topically.
@@saintsword23 Thanks for the response. I suppose I'm wanting to make clear my own concerns, which target certain approaches in philosophy, rather than the field as a whole. And a central element of those concerns is the kind of bad Moorean philosophy I see so much of.
//If you don't want to play this language game, I have no problem with that, but what people do is go much further and insist that others stop playing it too.//
Some people might do that, and I'd criticize them if they did. I don't endorse *insisting* people not do what I regard as bad philosophy. But I do strongly discourage them from doing so, for much the same reason I discourage people from smoking cigarettes or touching hot stoves.
//Secondarily, they seem to take issue with the conclusions they come to; I think most people would like to do philosophy the same way GE Moore does it.///
I agree. That’s *why* I’m opposed to so much philosophy. I think Moore’s approach to philosophy was awful and a massive intellectual setback.
//I can't think of a worse philosopher than Moore. Wanting to just assume certain things is just special pleading and insisting on it is just further philistinism.//
Great, neither can I! When I critique philosophy, this is the kind of philosophy I have in mind. I’d prefer people stop doing bad philosophy, and instead do good philosophy. But most philosophers don’t agree with me about what counts as good philosophy, and so the field keeps shuffling along doing what I regard as mostly useless and even actively counterproductive work. I think there’s some good philosophy. It’s hard to critique the stuff I don’t like without being lumped in with people who hate the entire field.
Mathematics is the queen of the sciences.
Philosophy is the mother of sciences.
Always viewed math as the dad. Underappreciated but definitely a role model.
I love both science and philosophy. It's ridiculous that some people try to separate them. Actually, I think studying philosophy makes you a better person since it touches fundamental ethical issues.
Hey dude, I'm still confused as to what you meant by Loke being a "sophomore" philosopher. Isn't his pHd in philosophy?
@@logans.butler285 He makes bad arguments.
Anyone arguing that philosophy is useless is gonna need some damn good background in philosophy to be convincing.
Maybe. Do people need to have a good background in astrology to judge astrology to be useless?
@@lanceindependent not really because astrology doesnt include things like deductive arguments.
I think the core issue with philosophy is the "skin in the game" problem. And I generally like philosophy, but this problem is intractable.
This is something that worries me, too. It’s incredibly hard to address. The best way forward is probably to campaign for the development of intellectual virtues - to really try to cultivate them in oneself and equip others with the tools, skills, and resources to cultivate them in themselves
In your process of trying to ARGUE that philosophy is useful, you have ASSUMED the usefulness of philosophy, which is begging the question. INVALID, GG.
This is not true but go on your rambling
@@hydrofn5120 if you think a couple sentences are "rambling" then you should be the first one to think philosophy is useless lmao
@@hydrofn5120 why is it not true
@@elbretto6062 Because someone doesn't need to presume Philosophy is useful to show why it's useful? In the video there are literally demonstrated examples of history which philosophy has been useful
@@karayi7239 I don't see how that follows
Non-scientific chains of reasoning are useless. And to prove that claim I will be using non-scientific chains of reasoning !
EDIT (since I guess it’s necessary …)
I think one problem here is that we didn’t clarify what we mean by “useless.” I mean with regards to discerning or revealing truth. So in that context, “philosophy is useless” would mean “philosophical arguments don’t capture or reveal truth.”
One cannot use science to prove that claim that “only science reveals truth (or Reitan 2008 puts it, “science in principle cannot discern whether there’s more to reality than science can discern”)
You’d have to somehow *step outside* of scientific enterprise in order to argue that science alone captures truths. But in so doing, you’ve stopped doing science and began doing philosophy.
The claim “philosophical arguments don’t reveal truth” could *only* be defended by philosophical arguments- that’s where the self defeating aspect comes in.
In order to show that “philosophy is useless” you’d have to … do philosophy.
The analogy to swans is just completely irrelevant here. The swan scenario involves somebody making a rash generalization based on limited experiences. But the statement “all swans are the same color,” although false, does NOT have the same self-defeating nature as the claim “philosophy is useless” does - the latter presupposes the category in order to argue against the category;
IF somehow it were true that “philosophy is useless” then it would be false (because you’d be presupposing the usefulness of philosophy to argue against its usefulness!).
So the bottom line is that philosophical arguments DO capture truth.
_"And to prove that claim,_ [that non-scientific chains of reasoning are useless,] _I will be using non-scientific chains of reasoning."_
Which is useless, I suppose.
But if so, doesn't that example of a useless "proof" with a useless non-scientific chain of reasoning at least confirm, that all non-scientific claims are supposedly useless?
If so, then also that "parody" of yours is just useless.
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns Well, a white swan confirms, that all swans are white. It doesn't proves, that to be the case, but it confirms that to be the case as a non-white swan such as a black swan falsifies that to be the case.
Same goes for your useless parody. It doesn't proves, that all non-scientific chains of reasoning are useless. But it confirms that very well.👍
@@zsoltnagy5654 I thought you were being silly. Obviously, the only point I was making is that critics of non-scientific reasoning end up presupposing the efficacy of such reasoning in their attempts to reason against it, which only gets you a foot in the door to be sure. But once the door is open, one can’t object ahead of time to the reasoning merely because it’s “not scientific.”
Sounds like you agree?
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns Yes, it sounds like me and you and useless reasoning. And yet, I still don't know, what is supposed to be a "black swan" here - an actually useful non-scientific chains of reasoning.
Yes, I'm shooting with this in my own foot as you are shooting with that useless parody in your own foot.
Just because I'm supposedly "wrong", that won't make you to be "correct" or "right". Actually you are as "wrong" with your useless parody as I'm supposed to be "wrong" with that with my non-scientific chain of reasoning and that's the point here.
If you want to criticize something, then please make a *constructive criticism* instead making such BS, as constrictive criticisms are the only useful non-scientific chains of reasoning.
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns No problem, son.
"yes" all you need is the word of God to understand the world
Philosophy, science, and theology are intertwined like the Trinity.
i find this to be ad hoc
what about math?
@@unhingedconnoisseur164 I'm not sure which category I put math in. What is math? Is math the same kind of thing as logic? Is logic the same thing as philosophy? Or is math its own thing?
@@harlowcj i don’t see how you can justify saying that philosophy , science and theology are intertwined whilst excluding math / logic. i’m not sure how you can come up with any way to define what “intertwined “ means, that includes these three, but not math, unless your definition arbitrarily excludes math (and logic)
@@unhingedconnoisseur164 Then I'd simply expand my definition to include math or logic if that's the sticking point.
@@harlowcj meaning it is not longer like the trinity, that is, if part of the reason for your comparison is that there are 3
Yes, it is 100% useless. Every philosophy department in the whole world could magically vanish tomorrow and the world would miss out not a shred of expertise. Now imagine if the same thing happened to every Classics or Art History Department in the world.
L
@@saucelessgiuseppe Ummm what?
Even if humanity vanishes tomorrow, would the universe or even the earth, care?
@@InvinciblePepe Probably not
The KJV Bible is mathematically encoded