Why people like philosophy ?

Everyone has a philosophy or way they perceive life. It's whether or not they acknowledge it or share it with the world that it becomes a school of thought or area of interest.

Why people use grammar? Me no get concept.

Philosophy, like grammar, makes life clear. It adds meaning to life.

This is coming from someone with "zen" in their username?

I love philosophy, it helps you understand your world better and gives you new ways to think about things. It also helps develop critical thinking skills. I also find it very interesting

I understand where you're coming from. I've met many people in life that will say, "Well it's my philosophy." Than why is there schools for it, if you can just live by your own?metallica_fan42

Because it's pleasurable for some to see how others think?

because they cant get into a real carreer?

Philosophy is useless, why many people like it, I dont get it.Zensword

Centuries of intellectual pursuit of the western and eastern civilizations, great minds have given their best and then comes Zensworld, who i guess has read not more than two-three books claiming that philosophy is bulls*** and useless.

[QUOTE="Zensword"]Philosophy is useless, why many people like it, I dont get it.Stavrogin_

Centuries of intellectual pursuit of the western and eastern civilizations, great minds have given their best and then comes Zensworld, who i guess has read not more than two-three books claiming that philosophy is bulls*** and useless.

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="Zensword"]Philosophy is useless, why many people like it, I dont get it.Hakarie

Centuries of intellectual pursuit of the western and eastern civilizations, great minds have given their best and then comes Zensworld, who i guess has read not more than two-three books claiming that philosophy is bulls*** and useless.

Probably because it's logical, but eventually you just realize keeping it simple is easier. People are just greedy & deceptive so rationalizing beyond that is just a waste of time.

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="Zensword"]Philosophy is useless, why many people like it, I dont get it.Hakarie

Centuries of intellectual pursuit of the western and eastern civilizations, great minds have given their best and then comes Zensworld, who i guess has read not more than two-three books claiming that philosophy is bulls*** and useless.

It can at least be fun to watch.

Philosophy, in general, is for people who want to sound smart by asking a bunch of empty questions, without actually knowing anything. It makes them seem intellectual and wise, even though all of it is just regurgitating things that have been said by millions of people for hundreds of years. No one comes up with anything new, no one makes any profound discoveries; it's pseudo-intellectual fluff. And I fully expect someone who thinks they have a deep understanding of the universe that the rest of the world lacks to tell me I just don't understand, but I totally will some day (with zero explanation of what there is to understand, 'cause hell, they don't really know themselves). JinjonatorX

Because I don't want my monocle collecting dust.

Because the unexamined life is not worth living for a human being- socrates. Also, philosophy makes claims to the highest form of knowledge, since it is knowledge for knowledge's sake instead of just a means to an end. -this is paraphrasing either plato or aristotle...can't remember.

Philosophy, in general, is for people who want to sound smart by asking a bunch of empty questions, without actually knowing anything. It makes them seem intellectual and wise, even though all of it is just regurgitating things that have been said by millions of people for hundreds of years. No one comes up with anything new, no one makes any profound discoveries; it's pseudo-intellectual fluff. And I fully expect someone who thinks they have a deep understanding of the universe that the rest of the world lacks to tell me I just don't understand, but I totally will some day (with zero explanation of what there is to understand, 'cause hell, they don't really know themselves). JinjonatorX

I love philosophy, it helps you understand your world better and gives you new ways to think about things. It also helps develop critical thinking skills. I also find it very interesting

Bane_09

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="Zensword"]Philosophy is useless, why many people like it, I dont get it.Hakarie

Centuries of intellectual pursuit of the western and eastern civilizations, great minds have given their best and then comes Zensworld, who i guess has read not more than two-three books claiming that philosophy is bulls*** and useless.

I would say, rather, that we live in a society that assigns very little value to philosophy. According to our societal norms anything that doesn't produce tangible goods or wealth is useless, but I think that is more a deficiency of our society than of philosophy. For instance, such an attitude has produced great technological advancement, but the way in which we utilize technology is still haphazard. Philosophy can help us to come to terms with technological advancement, view society and its subsystems in different and unique ways, and employ our technology more intelligently because of it, and that subsequently will produce tangible results like better efficiency in the utilization of technology, more efficiency in resource consumption, and so on. But because those tangible results are more a by-product of the intangible product of philosophy (wisdom), we do not associate them with philosophy.

I studied it for a year or two, and whilst certain aspects interested me, I didn't feel it was particularly constructive or relevant. This was probably because a couple of years of study isn't in-depth enough to grasp the fine roots of it all, but after that time of studying it, I didn't really feel I was interested enough to pursue it further. I don't have a problem with other people finding it interesting however, as TC seems so against.

Philosophy, in general, is for people who want to sound smart by asking a bunch of empty questions, without actually knowing anything. It makes them seem intellectual and wise, even though all of it is just regurgitating things that have been said by millions of people for hundreds of years. No one comes up with anything new, no one makes any profound discoveries; it's pseudo-intellectual fluff. And I fully expect someone who thinks they have a deep understanding of the universe that the rest of the world lacks to tell me I just don't understand, but I totally will some day (with zero explanation of what there is to understand, 'cause hell, they don't really know themselves). JinjonatorX

How do you know that those questions are empty? How do you define empty?

There isn't much that anybody says that hasn't been said before by someone else. For example, existentialism was celebrated as an entirely new school of thought, but centuries earlier Socrates had asked that the phrase "know thyself" be inscribed upon his tomb, essentially encapsulating the primary theme of existentialism years before its "invention." However, that isn't to say that just because something has been said that everyone understands it, part of the value of philosophy is rediscivering truths that have been lost, or ones that were uttered but never widely understood. Furthermore, all philosphers are humans and all humans are fallible. Therefore, their philosophical writings are never completely true and all-encompassing. There is always merit in studying these writings and trying to modify them to fit new truths. In fact, Michel Foucault argued that truth is ever-changing, and that as soon as any one maxim is accepted as true it loses its "truthiness" and must be debunked by philosophers. If you accept this premise, then it is impossible to ever know philosophical truths and the task of studying philosophy is never and will never be complete.

As to the part about understanding, I wouldn't put it exactly like that. It's true that there is no one that understands how the universe operates, however I do think that there are people who aspire to study the question and people who simply want their immediate reactions validated. Much of the value of philosophy isn't in the destination it leads to, but in the journey itself. So no these people don't have all the answers and no the answer won't just come to you one day, but knowledge and understanding come to those who seek them, and not those who simply wait for them.

I would say, rather, that we live in a society that assigns very little value to philosophy. According to our societal norms anything that doesn't produce tangible goods or wealth is useless, but I think that is more a deficiency of our society than of philosophy. For instance, such an attitude has produced great technological advancement, but the way in which we utilize technology is still haphazard. Philosophy can help us to come to terms with technological advancement, view society and its subsystems in different and unique ways, and employ our technology more intelligently because of it, and that subsequently will produce tangible results like better efficiency in the utilization of technology, more efficiency in resource consumption, and so on. But because those tangible results are more a by-product of the intangible product of philosophy (wisdom), we do not associate them with philosophy.theone86

According to Schopenhauer the great minds are not particularly resourcefull or cunning and that's why they have a difficult time getting around in life (achieving material success) except if the case is, they are born in a rich family and have no financial problems. That is because their will is weak and they're in service of objective knowledge not in the service of the will. People with a strong will and above average intelligence (smart minds) are the ones who succeed in life most of the time because their goal is purely practical, promotion at work, practical knowledge, gaining material wealth and so on. It's a matter of instrumentalization of the mind and aiming it towards practical goals, this is not the case with great minds.

That's why they are not good at living practical lives and most of them are considered eccentric, some are misunderstood in their time, and they are only happy when they create art or philosophy. So according to Kant, there are geniuses only in art and according to Schopenhauer, in philosophy too, because the great works of art and philosophy never get old.

This is why some people consider philosophy to be useless, doesn't mean they're all stupid but rather their mind is focused only towards practical goals, and too bad that acknowledging this won't make you/me/anyone a genius or a great mind. :)

[QUOTE="theone86"]I would say, rather, that we live in a society that assigns very little value to philosophy. According to our societal norms anything that doesn't produce tangible goods or wealth is useless, but I think that is more a deficiency of our society than of philosophy. For instance, such an attitude has produced great technological advancement, but the way in which we utilize technology is still haphazard. Philosophy can help us to come to terms with technological advancement, view society and its subsystems in different and unique ways, and employ our technology more intelligently because of it, and that subsequently will produce tangible results like better efficiency in the utilization of technology, more efficiency in resource consumption, and so on. But because those tangible results are more a by-product of the intangible product of philosophy (wisdom), we do not associate them with philosophy.Stavrogin_

According to Schopenhauer the great minds are not particularly resourcefull or cunning and that's why they have a difficult time getting around in life (achieving material success) except if the case is, they are born in a rich family and have no financial problems. That is because their will is weak and they're in service of objective knowledge not in the service of the will. People with a strong will and above average intelligence (smart minds) are the ones who succeed in life most of the time because their goal is purely practical, promotion at work, practical knowledge, gaining material wealth and so on. It's a matter of instrumentalization of the mind and aiming it towards practical goals, this is not the case with great minds.

That's why they are not good at living practical lives and most of the are consider eccentric, some are misunderstood in their time, and they are only happy when they create art or philosophy. So according to Kant, there are geniuses only in art and according to Schopenhauer, in philosophy too, because the great works of art and philosophy never get old.

This is why some people consider philosophy to be useless, doesn't mean they're all stupid but rather they mind is focused only towards practical goals, but acknowledging this won't make you or me a genius or a great mind though. :)

I'm not so sure I like that explanation, you're getting to the part of Kant's work that seems a bit too mystical for my tastes, and though I haven't really studied Schoepenhauer, from what I know of him he seems to be even more mystical than Kant. More than that, though, this argument seems to contain the idea of an à priori essence within each person, that of being either practical or intellectual. À priori is an idea that I tend to be very skeptical of, though one I still have to keep in mind as a possibility.

My hypothesis is far more behavioral and materialist, as my personal philosophy tends to be. I see the devaluation of philosphy more as an effect of our society, and given that society places an emphasis on material wealth it's perfectly reasonable that most people within such a society would be more focused on material wealth. In addition, I would mix in a bit of Foucaultian theory, that society conditions people through pedagogy and the institutions that make up its infastructure. Therefore, it is no simple choiceof intellectualismover accumulation of personal wealth, but it is rather a choice that requires an active and conscious split with the conditioning of society, one that most people simply cannot make (whether that's due to any specific conditions, some à priori trait, or simple luck is a whole other story).

At any rate, I think there are plenty of philosphers that are focused on material things, I think the reason that they rarely make much money is because they don't fit into society. There's no demand for their product, but they don't know how to make anything else so they keep selling it. It's not that they don't have practical goals, it's that the means to those goals in current society aren't an option to them, so they look for other means.

I believe history is way more important than philosophy. Take for instance that Plato is sometimes called the "fascist philosopher" because of one book called "Republica" that would have been used to kill someone like Socrates who was Plato's teacher! History shows that during the time Plato wrote Republica the Spartans had taken Athens so in a way Plato cracked. In the span of 30 years both Sparta and Athens were gone because nobody cared anymore. btw Reagan came to power 30 years ago, so maybe this is it for America?ehhwhatever

First off, philosophy applies to history. History itself requires interpretation, and interpretation necessarily brings up philosophical questions.

Second, what?

[QUOTE="metallica_fan42"]I understand where you're coming from. I've met many people in life that will say, "Well it's my philosophy." Than why is there schools for it, if you can just live by your own?MarioRPGer

Because it's pleasurable for some to see how others think?

[QUOTE="Zensword"]Philosophy is useless, why many people like it, I dont get it.Stavrogin_

Centuries of intellectual pursuit of the western and eastern civilizations, great minds have given their best and then comes Zensworld, who i guess has read not more than two-three books claiming that philosophy is bulls*** and useless.

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="Zensword"]Philosophy is useless, why many people like it, I dont get it.Zensword

Centuries of intellectual pursuit of the western and eastern civilizations, great minds have given their best and then comes Zensworld, who i guess has read not more than two-three books claiming that philosophy is bulls*** and useless.

Much of our politics, ethics, and outlook in life come from these said people, ever heard of the Hippocratic Oath? That came from the ancient greek philsopher communities.. I like how you kept out some of the biggest names.. Like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.. Hell matter being made up of atoms was put forward as a idea by the ancient Greek society!

I'm not so sure I like that explanation, you're getting to the part of Kant's work that seems a bit too mystical for my tastes, and though I haven't really studied Schoepenhauer, from what I know of him he seems to be even more mystical than Kant. More than that, though, this argument seems to contain the idea of an à priori essence within each person, that of being either practical or intellectual. À priori is an idea that I tend to be very skeptical of, though one I still have to keep in mind as a possibility.

My hypothesis is far more behavioral and materialist, as my personal philosophy tends to be. I see the devaluation of philosphy more as an effect of our society, and given that society places an emphasis on material wealth it's perfectly reasonable that most people within such a society would be more focused on material wealth. In addition, I would mix in a bit of Foucaultian theory, that society conditions people through pedagogy and the institutions that make up its infastructure. Therefore, it is no simple choiceof intellectualismover accumulation of personal wealth, but it is rather a choice that requires an active and conscious split with the conditioning of society, one that most people simply cannot make (whether that's due to any specific conditions, some à priori trait, or simple luck is a whole other story).

At any rate, I think there are plenty of philosphers that are focused on material things, I think the reason that they rarely make much money is because they don't fit into society. There's no demand for their product, but they don't know how to make anything else so they keep selling it. It's not that they don't have practical goals, it's that the means to those goals in current society aren't an option to them, so they look for other means.

theone86

About the thrid paragraph. Don't you think that in order for that to be true it would mean that philosopher's primary goal is material wealth through their works rather than objective knowledge? I certainly disagree with that idea. For a smart man like Nietzsche i really think that he would have figured out that the books like "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" were not going to generate much popularity and wealth, and after that he would write something that is more acceptable, popular and mainstream. And yet, despite their pitiful commercial success he continued writing on the same subjects, most of the time.That's why i think Schopenhauer's analysis is somewhat right, great philosopher's goals are among others to share his thoughts with the world. And you mentioned "plenty of philosophers". Being a philosopher doesn't equal to being a great mind and i certainly think that those who's primary goal is achieving material success rather than knowledge through their works never turn out to be great minds.

[QUOTE="JinjonatorX"]Philosophy, in general, is for people who want to sound smart by asking a bunch of empty questions, without actually knowing anything. It makes them seem intellectual and wise, even though all of it is just regurgitating things that have been said by millions of people for hundreds of years. No one comes up with anything new, no one makes any profound discoveries; it's pseudo-intellectual fluff. And I fully expect someone who thinks they have a deep understanding of the universe that the rest of the world lacks to tell me I just don't understand, but I totally will some day (with zero explanation of what there is to understand, 'cause hell, they don't really know themselves). Stavrogin_

[QUOTE="JinjonatorX"]Philosophy, in general, is for people who want to sound smart by asking a bunch of empty questions, without actually knowing anything. It makes them seem intellectual and wise, even though all of it is just regurgitating things that have been said by millions of people for hundreds of years. No one comes up with anything new, no one makes any profound discoveries; it's pseudo-intellectual fluff. And I fully expect someone who thinks they have a deep understanding of the universe that the rest of the world lacks to tell me I just don't understand, but I totally will some day (with zero explanation of what there is to understand, 'cause hell, they don't really know themselves). Stavrogin_

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="Zensword"]Philosophy is useless, why many people like it, I dont get it.Zensword

Centuries of intellectual pursuit of the western and eastern civilizations, great minds have given their best and then comes Zensworld, who i guess has read not more than two-three books claiming that philosophy is bulls*** and useless.

You get different methods of understanding the world around you. Kant advanced the idea that the way we perceive the universe isn't inherently how the universe is, and idea that is very influential in fields like primate anthropology, and even in the study of different societies. Hegel put forward a theory of epistemology that has pretty much been the basis of all theories that followed, and which was greatly influential in the field of psychology (Hegel has many parallels with C.G. Jung). Nietzche put forward methods of valuation that weren't reliant on mystical explanations. Schoeppenhauer, okay I'm not going ot make much of an effort to defend him, though I will say that I think he highlighted the importance of art as an expression even if I find his explication of such importance dubious.

My biggest question, though, is how you can study eastern philosophies like that, ones that typically highlight the pursuit of knowledge and warn against pigeonholing oneself into dogmatic schools of thought, and ones that emphasize looking for truth in everything, and then turn around and say that western philosophy is useless?

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="Zensword"]Philosophy is useless, why many people like it, I dont get it.Zensword

Centuries of intellectual pursuit of the western and eastern civilizations, great minds have given their best and then comes Zensworld, who i guess has read not more than two-three books claiming that philosophy is bulls*** and useless.

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="Zensword"]Philosophy is useless, why many people like it, I dont get it.Zensword

Centuries of intellectual pursuit of the western and eastern civilizations, great minds have given their best and then comes Zensworld, who i guess has read not more than two-three books claiming that philosophy is bulls*** and useless.

1. It is pretty universal

2. You really can't be wrong. You can make an ass out of yourself, but you can't really be wrong

3. Its the ultimate form of trolling

[QUOTE="theone86"]I'm not so sure I like that explanation, you're getting to the part of Kant's work that seems a bit too mystical for my tastes, and though I haven't really studied Schoepenhauer, from what I know of him he seems to be even more mystical than Kant. More than that, though, this argument seems to contain the idea of an à priori essence within each person, that of being either practical or intellectual. À priori is an idea that I tend to be very skeptical of, though one I still have to keep in mind as a possibility.

My hypothesis is far more behavioral and materialist, as my personal philosophy tends to be. I see the devaluation of philosphy more as an effect of our society, and given that society places an emphasis on material wealth it's perfectly reasonable that most people within such a society would be more focused on material wealth. In addition, I would mix in a bit of Foucaultian theory, that society conditions people through pedagogy and the institutions that make up its infastructure. Therefore, it is no simple choiceof intellectualismover accumulation of personal wealth, but it is rather a choice that requires an active and conscious split with the conditioning of society, one that most people simply cannot make (whether that's due to any specific conditions, some à priori trait, or simple luck is a whole other story).

At any rate, I think there are plenty of philosphers that are focused on material things, I think the reason that they rarely make much money is because they don't fit into society. There's no demand for their product, but they don't know how to make anything else so they keep selling it. It's not that they don't have practical goals, it's that the means to those goals in current society aren't an option to them, so they look for other means.

Stavrogin_

About the thrid paragraph. Don't you think that in order for that to be true it would mean that philosopher's primary goal is material wealth through their works rather than objective knowledge? I certainly disagree with that idea. For a smart man like Nietzsche i really think that he would have figured out that the books like "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" were not going to generate much popularity and wealth, and after that he would write something that is more acceptable, popular and mainstream. And yet, despite their pitiful commercial success he continued writing on the same subjects, most of the time.That's why i think Schopenhauer's analysis is somewhat right, great philosopher's goals are among others to share his thoughts with the world. And you mentioned "plenty of philosophers". Being a philosopher doesn't equal to being a great mind and i certainly think that those who's primary goal is achieving material success rather than knowledge through their works never turn out to be great minds.

Alright, maybe I'm taking the wrong conclusions away from Schopenhauer.

I think there's a difference between being unconcerned with material wealth and not having material wealth as your primary goal. I also think that sometimes it's not so much about material wealth per se, but about material consequences. There have been philosophers that very much want to create material results, ones that don't result in their own personal accumulation of wealth, but as I said can not find a way to reconcile society's methods of accumulating wealth with their own philosophies. I think that having wealth accumulation as a primary goal creates a sort of single-mindedness that precludes an individual from "becoming a great mind," I just don't think that becoming a great mind means going to the other extreme. I think that becoming completely disconnected from material gain also creates some disconnect from affecting change and creates the possibility of philosphy simply being a hedonistic pursuit. As one philospher put it, "philosphers, up to this point, have only interpreted the world in different ways, the point is to change it."