Why would anyone prefer to read philosophy instead of not?

[chilloutdancer]

I've been asking recently on stackexchange the same thing and the popular (and practically only) opinion was that you can use other people's experience and thoughts on the subject you are interested in, find your own logical mistakes, gain "tools" to tackle some problems and so on, and that there's no point to look at it from utilitarian point of view and look for some kind of finished result from philosophy, similar to how someone may learn applied fields of science in order to use it and because he can clearly see that people who do the same thing - can successfully apply it.

But I feel, that's ********.
1) Isn't "fixing of your own logical mistakes" basically balanced with the situation when both you and the author make the same mistake and when you read it, that gives you confidence that there's no mistake you are making?
And there's also an issue of being influenced by someone in general. Maybe if a person hadn't been reading philosophy at all, he could come up with something rather authentic, which would get him closer to whatever he's trying to get from reading philosophy.
2) How can you consider "tools to tackle problems" be "tools" if the philosophy in general is always question every conclusion you come to, therefore can't have finished "result"? Doesn't that make these "tools" just some useless thing you can't do anything with?
I mean, how is it different from some religions then? A person practicing his practice could tell you that practice gives him a feeling he hasn't felt before, the same way such philosopher could tell you "oh, I never thought about it this way before" after reading a book or something. In both cases it doesn't really mean anything, practice doesn't imply any kind of result that the religion is promising(enlightenment or whatever) and other people's ideas from reading philosophy also don't imply anything and give no reason for a person to value them in any way.
3) It could be arguable in some applied areas I guess, but what about metaphysics/phenomenology/everything following Kant/Schopenhauer/Nietzsche/Heidegger/etc.?
You can't really talk about logical mistakes here. Some people would feel what Heidegger is talking about is rather "natural", others wouldn't. It doesn't explain anything better in a sense of scientific method and you can't really measure it in any way.

But the more fundamental issue that's bothering me is the following (and the previous question could be reduced to this I guess):
Why would anyone still value the usual reasoning that he's always been using if it doesn't lead to anywhere in terms of solving a problem bothering you?
Or, very crudely if we talk in extremes for the sake of illustration, "Why doesn't a person think for example, that if he lose the ability to think logically and become "mistaken" in a lot of things from his current perspective, that he would still be bothered by the same questions and the situation in general would become only "worse"? I mean, such a person even would not consider himself mistaken probably. Isn't it kind of the same logical mistake when people talk about how you might regret doing suicide when you have no reason to assume there'll be someone to actually do this "regretting"?
Doesn't this kind of shift even seems natural in terms of problem solving and in a sense of moving to new direction of thought when the previous one doesn't actually solve anything?

That is, wouldn't a person reading philosophy always get to the point of dropping it because it doesn't really lead anywhere and doesn't solve anything?

[Belindi]

I've been asking recently on stackexchange the same thing and the popular (and practically only) opinion was that you can use other people's experience and thoughts on the subject you are interested in, find your own logical mistakes, gain "tools" to tackle some problems and so on, and that there's no point to look at it from utilitarian point of view and look for some kind of finished result from philosophy, similar to how someone may learn applied fields of science in order to use it and because he can clearly see that people who do the same thing - can successfully apply it.

But I feel, that's ********.
1) Isn't "fixing of your own logical mistakes" basically balanced with the situation when both you and the author make the same mistake and when you read it, that gives you confidence that there's no mistake you are making?
And there's also an issue of being influenced by someone in general. Maybe if a person hadn't been reading philosophy at all, he could come up with something rather authentic, which would get him closer to whatever he's trying to get from reading philosophy.
2) How can you consider "tools to tackle problems" be "tools" if the philosophy in general is always question every conclusion you come to, therefore can't have finished "result"? Doesn't that make these "tools" just some useless thing you can't do anything with?
I mean, how is it different from some religions then? A person practicing his practice could tell you that practice gives him a feeling he hasn't felt before, the same way such philosopher could tell you "oh, I never thought about it this way before" after reading a book or something. In both cases it doesn't really mean anything, practice doesn't imply any kind of result that the religion is promising(enlightenment or whatever) and other people's ideas from reading philosophy also don't imply anything and give no reason for a person to value them in any way.
3) It could be arguable in some applied areas I guess, but what about metaphysics/phenomenology/everything following Kant/Schopenhauer/Nietzsche/Heidegger/etc.?
You can't really talk about logical mistakes here. Some people would feel what Heidegger is talking about is rather "natural", others wouldn't. It doesn't explain anything better in a sense of scientific method and you can't really measure it in any way.

But the more fundamental issue that's bothering me is the following (and the previous question could be reduced to this I guess):
Why would anyone still value the usual reasoning that he's always been using if it doesn't lead to anywhere in terms of solving a problem bothering you?
Or, very crudely if we talk in extremes for the sake of illustration, "Why doesn't a person think for example, that if he lose the ability to think logically and become "mistaken" in a lot of things from his current perspective, that he would still be bothered by the same questions and the situation in general would become only "worse"? I mean, such a person even would not consider himself mistaken probably. Isn't it kind of the same logical mistake when people talk about how you might regret doing suicide when you have no reason to assume there'll be someone to actually do this "regretting"?
Doesn't this kind of shift even seems natural in terms of problem solving and in a sense of moving to new direction of thought when the previous one doesn't actually solve anything?

That is, wouldn't a person reading philosophy always get to the point of dropping it because it doesn't really lead anywhere and doesn't solve anything?

Confirmation bias is actually tackled by Descartes in his Meditations where scepticism is shown to be the WD40 of ideas.

Subjectivity is the fuel of learning, as without it nobody would have any momentum.

Why would anyone still value the usual reasoning that he's always been using if it doesn't lead to anywhere in terms of solving a problem bothering you?

This is answered by the description and explanation of negative capability. It is a learned wisdom to be capable both of asking hard questions and also not panicking or obsessing when there is no answer.

https://www.masterclass.com/articles/jo ... literature

[Pattern-chaser]

I've been asking recently on stackexchange the same thing and the popular (and practically only) opinion was that you can use other people's experience and thoughts on the subject you are interested in, find your own logical mistakes, gain "tools" to tackle some problems and so on, and that there's no point to look at it from utilitarian point of view and look for some kind of finished result from philosophy, similar to how someone may learn applied fields of science in order to use it and because he can clearly see that people who do the same thing - can successfully apply it.

But I feel, that's ********.

...

That is, wouldn't a person reading philosophy always get to the point of dropping it because it doesn't really lead anywhere and doesn't solve anything?

Philosophy is a field of learning, not of conclusions. As much as anything else, it's about how to learn ... and maybe even why.

For those who have ears to hear, philosophy teaches that those who seek definite conclusions and certainty will probably be disappointed. It teaches us how little we know and understand, a lesson we all need to learn. It teaches us that wisdom may, if we are lucky, emerge from our learning. There are no certainties; perhaps that is the most valuable lesson philosophy has to offer?

[Pattern-chaser]

It is a learned wisdom to be capable both of asking hard questions and also not panicking or obsessing when there is no answer.

I wish I'd said that. ...

[SteveKlinko]

I've been asking recently on stackexchange the same thing and the popular (and practically only) opinion was that you can use other people's experience and thoughts on the subject you are interested in, find your own logical mistakes, gain "tools" to tackle some problems and so on, and that there's no point to look at it from utilitarian point of view and look for some kind of finished result from philosophy, similar to how someone may learn applied fields of science in order to use it and because he can clearly see that people who do the same thing - can successfully apply it.

But I feel, that's ********.
1) Isn't "fixing of your own logical mistakes" basically balanced with the situation when both you and the author make the same mistake and when you read it, that gives you confidence that there's no mistake you are making?
And there's also an issue of being influenced by someone in general. Maybe if a person hadn't been reading philosophy at all, he could come up with something rather authentic, which would get him closer to whatever he's trying to get from reading philosophy.
2) How can you consider "tools to tackle problems" be "tools" if the philosophy in general is always question every conclusion you come to, therefore can't have finished "result"? Doesn't that make these "tools" just some useless thing you can't do anything with?
I mean, how is it different from some religions then? A person practicing his practice could tell you that practice gives him a feeling he hasn't felt before, the same way such philosopher could tell you "oh, I never thought about it this way before" after reading a book or something. In both cases it doesn't really mean anything, practice doesn't imply any kind of result that the religion is promising(enlightenment or whatever) and other people's ideas from reading philosophy also don't imply anything and give no reason for a person to value them in any way.
3) It could be arguable in some applied areas I guess, but what about metaphysics/phenomenology/everything following Kant/Schopenhauer/Nietzsche/Heidegger/etc.?
You can't really talk about logical mistakes here. Some people would feel what Heidegger is talking about is rather "natural", others wouldn't. It doesn't explain anything better in a sense of scientific method and you can't really measure it in any way.

But the more fundamental issue that's bothering me is the following (and the previous question could be reduced to this I guess):
Why would anyone still value the usual reasoning that he's always been using if it doesn't lead to anywhere in terms of solving a problem bothering you?
Or, very crudely if we talk in extremes for the sake of illustration, "Why doesn't a person think for example, that if he lose the ability to think logically and become "mistaken" in a lot of things from his current perspective, that he would still be bothered by the same questions and the situation in general would become only "worse"? I mean, such a person even would not consider himself mistaken probably. Isn't it kind of the same logical mistake when people talk about how you might regret doing suicide when you have no reason to assume there'll be someone to actually do this "regretting"?
Doesn't this kind of shift even seems natural in terms of problem solving and in a sense of moving to new direction of thought when the previous one doesn't actually solve anything?

That is, wouldn't a person reading philosophy always get to the point of dropping it because it doesn't really lead anywhere and doesn't solve anything?

There is a time to read Philosophy and think other people's thoughts. But eventually a time comes when you cannot read Philosophy anymore. At that time, you must become a Philosopher and think your own thoughts. I have read Philosophy and I have Philosophied. For me it is now time to read Quantum Field Theory.

[chewybrian]

I've been asking recently on stackexchange the same thing and the popular (and practically only) opinion was that you can use other people's experience and thoughts on the subject you are interested in, find your own logical mistakes, gain "tools" to tackle some problems and so on, and that there's no point to look at it from utilitarian point of view and look for some kind of finished result from philosophy, similar to how someone may learn applied fields of science in order to use it and because he can clearly see that people who do the same thing - can successfully apply it.

The bold is the thing, and if you expect more of philosophy, your expectations are too great and you will certainly be disappointed. Think of philosophy as if you had 100 grandfathers of your own. Could you learn something from your grandfathers that would serve you well? Of course you could! Yet, some of them will be fools, some of them will be egomaniacs, some of them will be wishful dreamers not grounded in reality... So it is with philosophers. You have to judge whether the philosopher or your grandfather is wise or not.

If they are wise, their example of how to live shines bright and sets an example which you in turn are wise to follow. If you follow the advice of the one(s) who seem wise, your actions are immediately guided by their principles. If you chose well and you stick to these principles, your life and your peace of mind or happiness will gradually improve. Slowly, you may be seen by others as more trustworthy, more friendly, less judgmental, and perhaps even as an example of wisdom that they might wish to emulate. Of course, it's more important that you see improvement in yourself, while taking stock of yourself in the most objective manner you can manage. If it doesn't seem to be working out that way for you, then perhaps you have mistakenly followed a fool or a dreamer or an egomaniac. Maybe you should seek the advice of a different grandfather and begin again.

Philosophy is not a hard science like the ones that tell you how to successfully build a bomb. Philosophy is a set of guidelines on how to live that tells you when or if you should build a bomb or not.

[Terrapin Station]

You might as well ask, "Why would anyone prefer to read/learn science rather than not," or "Why would anyone prefer to read/learn painting techniques rather than not," etc.

Philosophy is a complex, systematic discipline that's been developed, with generations of philosophers building on the work of previous philosophers, over literally thousands of years. It takes many years to even get moderately up to speed on the core ideas, and at this point, one can easily spend a lifetime on subdisciplines of philosophy and still not be familiar with--and still not well understand--all of the pertinent material.

A lot of people aren't very interested in it, and that's fine. It's just like a lot of people aren't very interested in learning how to paint. And then a lot of people have misconceived ideas about what philosophy, is, exactly, based on colloquial usage of the term. That's similar to, say, the plethora of odd ways that people use a term like "evolution" when they're not very interested in learning any biology. That's not biology's fault in that case. Someone could say, "Why bother learning anything about evolution per biology? Why not just keep using the term in this uneducated way?" And sure, one could do that, but it shouldn't be a mystery why some people want to learn to pursue knowledge instead of being lazy and lacking curiosity.

[Atla]

1) Isn't "fixing of your own logical mistakes" basically balanced with the situation when both you and the author make the same mistake and when you read it, that gives you confidence that there's no mistake you are making?
And there's also an issue of being influenced by someone in general. Maybe if a person hadn't been reading philosophy at all, he could come up with something rather authentic, which would get him closer to whatever he's trying to get from reading philosophy.

That's been known to happen. For example there are two closely related ideas that almost every person living in Western cultures shares: the ego-identity and the basic separateness. Except these ideas are almost certainly wrong, and the entire Western civilization is sitting in this huge philosophical box of faulty thinking. No one realizes that they are sitting together in a box, as they all make the same mistakes.

And then they wonder why they can't ever come up with any satisfactory answers within the philosophy of mind, despite trying for centuries. Now in many branches of philosophy it can be perfectly fine to read philosophers. But when it comes to the above mentioned philosophy of mind for example, reading them could even be detrimental, sometimes people lose any chance they ever had of getting out of that box.

[Gee]

That is, wouldn't a person reading philosophy always get to the point of dropping it because it doesn't really lead anywhere and doesn't solve anything?

You have received some very good replies in this thread, but I would add some thoughts as I always find it helpful to remember the basics. First let us consider what philosophy actually is -- it is a study of knowledge. Whether you call it a study of truth or wisdom, or if you think of it as logic or even a measure of knowledge such as a PhD, it is all about knowledge.

So now, a question -- If we did not have philosophy, would we no longer need/want knowledge? Yes, that is a silly question as we would still be curious, we would still have questions and we would still seek answers. All philosophy does is give us the opportunity to acquire this knowledge in a disciplined study, so that hopefully, the knowledge is worth knowing.

As to the idea that philosophy "doesn't really lead anywhere and doesn't solve anything", that idea is also addressed by remembering the basics. Have you ever heard anyone state that science is a child of philosophy? Well it is because the discipline that created science and the scientific method came from philosophy. Science is one of the places where philosophy led us.

Gee

[Belindi]

That is, wouldn't a person reading philosophy always get to the point of dropping it because it doesn't really lead anywhere and doesn't solve anything?

You have received some very good replies in this thread, but I would add some thoughts as I always find it helpful to remember the basics. First let us consider what philosophy actually is -- it is a study of knowledge. Whether you call it a study of truth or wisdom, or if you think of it as logic or even a measure of knowledge such as a PhD, it is all about knowledge.

So now, a question -- If we did not have philosophy, would we no longer need/want knowledge? Yes, that is a silly question as we would still be curious, we would still have questions and we would still seek answers. All philosophy does is give us the opportunity to acquire this knowledge in a disciplined study, so that hopefully, the knowledge is worth knowing.

As to the idea that philosophy "doesn't really lead anywhere and doesn't solve anything", that idea is also addressed by remembering the basics. Have you ever heard anyone state that science is a child of philosophy? Well it is because the discipline that created science and the scientific method came from philosophy. Science is one of the places where philosophy led us.

Gee

Gee says it all.