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."theone86

[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.

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.

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. :)

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

[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.

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.

I expect everyone to cite the one from Pulp Fiction.

My favorite is:

Whom have I in heaven but you?

And earth has nothing I desire besides you.

My flesh and my heart may fail,

but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.

Psalm 73:25,26 (NIV)