What is the goal (or "What are the goals") of philosophy?

[Pattern-chaser]

You could definitely make a new thread about "What is the goal (or "What are the goals") of philosophy"? I would anticipate a wide array of opinions.

For myself, I would say that the goal of philosophy is learning. There's a lot more to it than that, of course, but I think that's the core of it.

I too "anticipate a wide array of opinions" - what are yours?

[JackDaydream]

It may be about different goals for different people who approach philosophy and its questions. Some may pursue it for academic reasons, others as a way of learning the art of thinking and some may be seeking the 'truth'. Initially, I approached it with the view to establishing truth, but the more I read and think, this becomes more remote and distant, with one question leading to another and, further complexities emerging constantly.

[stevie]

I think "goal of philosophy" isn't relevant because every individual may fabricate its own goal. More relevant is the cause of philosophical thinking which then may also indicate why a given individual fabricates a particular goal.

[LuckyR]

You could definitely make a new thread about "What is the goal (or "What are the goals") of philosophy"? I would anticipate a wide array of opinions.

For myself, I would say that the goal of philosophy is learning. There's a lot more to it than that, of course, but I think that's the core of it.

I too "anticipate a wide array of opinions" - what are yours?

To me philosophy is a framework with which one can interpret behavior and choose to act. It doesn't change events, just interpretations of events.

[Tegularius]

Never to reach any conclusion for that would destroy the joys of speculating.

[Spyrith]

I am a deeply pragmatic person at heart, so I would say that philosophy too has a pragmatic purpose.

Simply creating theories and explanations of various phenomena (no matter how wrong) is a valid and fair purpose of philosophy. In my mind, philosophy creates the dirt roads through the jungles and forests of ignorance, so that science can then come and fully pave the way and make those roads usable to all.

[Pattern-chaser]

I am a deeply pragmatic person at heart, so I would say that philosophy too has a pragmatic purpose.

Simply creating theories and explanations of various phenomena (no matter how wrong) is a valid and fair purpose of philosophy. In my mind, philosophy creates the dirt roads through the jungles and forests of ignorance...

That's a good way of looking at it, I think.

...so that science can then come and fully pave the way and make those roads usable to all.

Philosophy and science are quite different. They can and do address some issues common to both, but science is not, and never has been, the senior discipline to which philosophy must defer. If anything, it is the opposite.

[chewybrian]

It may be about different goals for different people who approach philosophy and its questions. Some may pursue it for academic reasons, others as a way of learning the art of thinking and some may be seeking the 'truth'. Initially, I approached it with the view to establishing truth, but the more I read and think, this becomes more remote and distant, with one question leading to another and, further complexities emerging constantly.

I think you nailed it. The goals are to approach objective truth and to act wisely and carefully on what seem to be its logical implications. I think secondary but very important goals are to learn to live well and to be happy and tranquil and just to others. But, if you are doing it right, then you find something like the Dunning-Kruger effect applies to wisdom as well as knowledge. You can approach expert level eventually in terms of knowledge of a specific subject. With wisdom, though, there is no sage. The far right end of the curve would never rise up again. Everything you learn seems to show you that there is more that you don't understand.

The short answer is that you should have a goal of making progress toward wisdom, virtue and tranquility. As soon as you think you have wisdom in your grasp. then you are probably giving back some of your gains.

[Tegularius]

I am a deeply pragmatic person at heart, so I would say that philosophy too has a pragmatic purpose.

Simply creating theories and explanations of various phenomena (no matter how wrong) is a valid and fair purpose of philosophy. In my mind, philosophy creates the dirt roads through the jungles and forests of ignorance...

That's a good way of looking at it, I think.

...so that science can then come and fully pave the way and make those roads usable to all.

Philosophy and science are quite different. They can and do address some issues common to both, but science is not, and never has been, the senior discipline to which philosophy must defer. If anything, it is the opposite.

Philosophy is the older discipline, no question, but the moment science defers to philosophy it becomes unscientific and can no-longer claim to be science.

[Sy Borg]

I think that, as humans, we are evolving to want to know what is going on around us. We are driven to better understand. Science to some extent has replaced philosophy but not entirely. As mentioned, each answered question opens up new questions. It doesn't seem that it's "turtles all the way down" as quantum entities appear to be reality's ground zero, though they appear to not make much sense to anyone. Anyway, science is about "how", leaving "why" questions to philosophy and mythological representations.

Ultimately we always want to know because "that's how things are" and arcane formulae understood by few are unsatisfying answers to perplexing questions about the nature of existence.

[Tegularius]

...to apply meaning to what has absolutely no ontological significance in nature which only supplies a vacuum as far as any reason for existence is concerned. Philosophy, religion, etc., exist mainly as epiphenomena of certain states of being, fulfilling the more complex psychological needs of creatures who were never supplied a reason for the process which created them.
Fictions are necessary to create such islands in a shore-less universe being mentally impossible to digest a vacuum.

[chewybrian]

Philosophy and science are quite different. They can and do address some issues common to both, but science is not, and never has been, the senior discipline to which philosophy must defer. If anything, it is the opposite.

Science can only tell us what we are able to do. Philosophy promises (and often fails) to tell us what we should do. The latter is more important, I think, so philosophy matters more in the end. But, both are important and useful.

[Pattern-chaser]

Philosophy is the older discipline, no question, but the moment science defers to philosophy it becomes unscientific and can no-longer claim to be science.

Exactly, and vice versa too. Science and philosophy are both tools we use to try to understand 'life, the universe and everything'. But that's about the limit of their commonalities. They are different tools, with different strengths and weaknesses. Our eternal blathering about which one is superior is a nonsensical waste of time. I can't work out why anyone would bother themselves with such a pointless cause/case.

And so I commented when it was implied that philosophy is the junior partner, and its best results might be deemed suitable for passing upward to science, the superior tool. The idea is without merit or use.

[Tegularius]

Philosophy is the older discipline, no question, but the moment science defers to philosophy it becomes unscientific and can no-longer claim to be science.

Exactly, and vice versa too. Science and philosophy are both tools we use to try to understand 'life, the universe and everything'. But that's about the limit of their commonalities. They are different tools, with different strengths and weaknesses. Our eternal blathering about which one is superior is a nonsensical waste of time. I can't work out why anyone would bother themselves with such a pointless cause/case.

And so I commented when it was implied that philosophy is the junior partner, and its best results might be deemed suitable for passing upward to science, the superior tool. The idea is without merit or use.

Completely agree. I don't believe most real thinkers care to pursue this line of enquiry knowing it will never lead to anything. It's mostly a subject for philosophy forums where everything is rehashed continuously in a search for something to talk about. If philosophy has a goal it would be the art of thinking which, if one thinks about it, applies to everything from the mundane to the deeply esoteric.

[anonymous66]

I think the question is similar to: what are the goals of mathematics?

Some do math because they simply love math. Some do philosophy simply because they love arguments. The goal of some mathematicians is to solve practical problems. The goal of some philosophers is to solve practical problems.

I find it interesting that there have been times when mathematicians were working on some esoteric form of mathematics just for the fun of it, and then many years later someone found a practical use for that form of mathematics. I suspect the same thing happens in philosophy.