Is philosophy pointless?

...not in a "Nietzschean" sense, i.e., those values which can be evaluated in no other way, the Existential, in short.

Are you going to prove I'm wrong? If not your just wasting my time.

No, it was a question from a sorely ignoren dude, who only wanted a simple answer.

No, because you can not. There is no shame to admit you were wrong.

Spare me your demagogery, if you think those empty numbers convinces me, then there's something terrible wrong.

If the numbers are empty then prove me wrong. It is obvious that you have no rebuttal or proof that your point is not one rooted in ignorance.

Ok. Obviously talking about philosophy's purpose in a measurable sense (like philosophy majors generally doing better on tests) has generated a lot of heated debate bordering on ad hominem. I like to think philosophy is usefull in ways we can't see.
So how about this. If I change a Nihilist who was about to kill himself into an optimist, maybe he will go on to try and help other nihilists or just the suicidal in general. Creating a) more philosophers who will do the same, and b) an overall brighter morality in the world or atleast around the new optimists.
Interesting how debates centered around non-measureable events usually generate more contreversy then debates centered around statistics. But here it was the other way around. I wonder why that is.

Yes, at best, if it only adds to humankind's confusion and feeds its delusions. At worst, if only feeds one sense of superiority, the ultimate delusions some might think.

I haven't read the entire discussion, so I might be repeating things others have written before me. Anyway, unlike most of the people, I do think philosophy has some practical implementations. In other words, I think that by learning philosophy you also learn how to think in certain ways, which apply and help you succeeding in other fields of thought, which are considered more practical. I.E. - Science.

I haven't read the entire discussion, so I might be repeating things others have written before me. Anyway, unlike most of the people, I do think philosophy has some practical implementations. In other words, I think that by learning philosophy you also learn how to think in certain ways, which apply and help you succeeding in other fields of thought, which are considered more practical. I.E. - Science.

This sums up what I was trying to prove to HexHammer earlier. Thanks Flow.

I haven't read the entire discussion, so I might be repeating things others have written before me. Anyway, unlike most of the people, I do think philosophy has some practical implementations. In other words, I think that by learning philosophy you also learn how to think in certain ways, which apply and help you succeeding in other fields of thought, which are considered more practical. I.E. - Science.

This sums up what I was trying to prove to HexHammer earlier. Thanks Flow.

I'm glad.

Also, there is something I would like to add to what I've written on my previous post:
You might argue that even though by learning philosophy you acquire all these thinking skills, which helps you to deal with scientific matters - there's no point in learning philosophy. Meaning: one might acquire these skills by learning science as well, and because by learning science, you also get to know and deal with some actual scientific questions - the last is superior.

This is a solid argument. But, one should also consider the fact that in science these meta-skills, are considered as secondary skills. I.E when one learns biology (or physics, or whatever) in the university, he is being taught biology and not "how one should or can think about biology". This attitude applies to all the fields that are being taught in the university, including philosophy. But, again, unlike other fields of thought, philosophy is about thinking. I would even write that the two most fundamental questions of philosophy are "how we think?" and "how one should think?". Although it is true, that the answers to these two questions are never absolute, it is also true that partial as these answers are, they do shape the way we actually think, and most of the times it is in a productive way.

Moreover, I would like to state that I see philosophy as an autonomic field of thought. That is to say, we need philosophers coming up with new theories and ideas, in order to make this shaping process to match to the recent developments in science. Like someone here has mentioned before - the whole concept of modern science is based on empiricism, but empiricism (in philosophy) is also based in someway on science. I mean, it is not a coincidence all the great empiricist also dealt with science.

Is this just a hobby, or will answering the big questions make a difference? Are you here because you feel comfort in the fact that people care enough to even search in the first place? Does a fear of the unknown drive us to try to answer these questions?

There is a lot of confusion about what Philosophy really is. I think Philosophy can divided in two parts. The first is trying to answer questions which are just means to answer other questions. The second is trying to answer those other questions once the those have been answered. Most of philosophy is trying to the find the answer to first-order questions, in order to answer the subsequent questions (hence why there is a lot of confusion in the notion of whether or not philosophy ever makes progress). For instance, just think about the debates over the synthetic a priori. Kant didn't write an extremely long book about whether or not the synthetic a priori is possible for its own sake, but rather, he did it to answer a subsequent question- whether or not metaphysics is possible. Another example would be the debates over naming in the philosophy of language. Can there be contingent identity statements? If not, then, if a=b, then necessarily a=b. But if that's true, there is an ontological distinction between mental states and brain states (see Saul Kripke). So, again, it seems that philosophy is always in the workshop. That is, always working on questions just to answer other questions.

If this is philosophy then I think That philosophy is pointless.

Is this just a hobby, or will answering the big questions make a difference? Are you here because you feel comfort in the fact that people care enough to even search in the first place? Does a fear of the unknown drive us to try to answer these questions?

There is a lot of confusion about what Philosophy really is. I think Philosophy can divided in two parts. The first is trying to answer questions which are just means to answer other questions. The second is trying to answer those other questions once the those have been answered. Most of philosophy is trying to the find the answer to first-order questions, in order to answer the subsequent questions (hence why there is a lot of confusion in the notion of whether or not philosophy ever makes progress). For instance, just think about the debates over the synthetic a priori. Kant didn't write an extremely long book about whether or not the synthetic a priori is possible for its own sake, but rather, he did it to answer a subsequent question- whether or not metaphysics is possible. Another example would be the debates over naming in the philosophy of language. Can there be contingent identity statements? If not, then, if a=b, then necessarily a=b. But if that's true, there is an ontological distinction between mental states and brain states (see Saul Kripke). So, again, it seems that philosophy is always in the workshop. That is, always working on questions just to answer other questions.

If this is philosophy then I think That philosophy is pointless.

Then don't study it.

How about this. Why are you here(in the forum)? I am here because I find philosophy discussion and debate fun and stimulating.

How about this. Why are you here(in the forum)? I am here because I find philosophy discussion and debate fun and stimulating.

I could not agree more KingKool, I'm here becuase I enjoy it.

How about this. Why are you here(in the forum)? I am here because I find philosophy discussion and debate fun and stimulating.

To some philosophy is only a cozy chat and mere pass time, others they try hard to discuss reason and logic, just that so many stoop down the dicussion.

Marcus Aurelious changed my life. As did William James. Montaigne. Even Nietzsche. It all depends on the philosopher and the kind of knowledge they impart.

How about this. Why are you here(in the forum)? I am here because I find philosophy discussion and debate fun and stimulating.

To some philosophy is only a cozy chat and mere pass time, others they try hard to discuss reason and logic, just that so many stoop down the dicussion.

Yeah. Ignoring my post proves you are right.

How about this. Why are you here(in the forum)? I am here because I find philosophy discussion and debate fun and stimulating.

To some philosophy is only a cozy chat and mere pass time, others they try hard to discuss reason and logic, just that so many stoop down the dicussion.

Hexhammer, your criticisms of philosophy are without support. You've merely asserting over and over the things you have said. You say philosophy is 'useless' and 'cozy chat' but you have admitted yourself you've only read Socrates, Kierkegaard, and Kant. For one, the first is over 2400 years old, the second can hardly be called a philosopher, and the third I highly doubt you have good understanding of, since you do not know what empiricism means. I suggest you catch up and read the modern stuff beginning with origin of the analytic tradition or else your opinion is without content.