Sophist wrote:

... It's possible to pick out individuals who have had blindingly obvious affects on the world as a whole, Marx and Engels, right up there. You could say the same of Confucius and Lao Tzu. Plato had a surprisingly large impact on the theology of Christianity (which in turn had a large affect on the rest of the world) in the middle ages when he was rediscovered from the Islamic libraries. Some folks often tie Nietzsche to the National Socialist party (fairly erroneously if I recall). John Locke is often cited as being influential in the drafting of the American constitution. You can point to their impact in the Renaissance and more so in the Enlightenment periods of history. More recently you could suggest the name of Karl Popper, he's well known for influencing Maggie Thatcher (who I believe in turn had some affect on Regan) and other leading political figures. Then there is game theory, arguably first encountered by a mathematician/polymath, philosophers love game theory, you can say it's the remit of psychology, but again, that's an old finger in an old pie for them. ...

Thanks for the answer. Yes this seems to be true. Philosophers have often influenced nations in the past.
It's interesting how some philosophies can sometimes be used as a form of religion (communism). Since the writings are often too intellectual for most people to understand, leaders (Lenin, Stalin) are free to interpret things as they like. It's a bit like how people like Ahmadinejad are using Islam for his own purposes.
Ok, that might have been a bit farfetched.

bradjaeger wrote:

To get stoner women in their 20's naked.

This is also a good area of use I guess. I'd go for the mathematician though.

Escutcheon wrote:

Philosophy has so enriched my own life, I can't imagine not ever having pursued it or how I would be fumbling even more so through life without it. My own personal opinion is that everyone should study the rudiments of philosophy if only to discover your authentic self; to me, nothing could be more valuable than that. Philosophy has introduced me to concepts I might not otherwise have pondered, and my life would have been the poorer for that. I'll ask you a basic philosophic question: How do you know what you know, and in that light, how do you know what you know is valid? Philosophy is the filter through which all in life is savoured and reflected upon for me. You seem to want some sort of tangible proof of its value, but none exists, not really, but the sweetness of life is made up of the intangibles. This is why our governments fund the arts as well. You're already a philosopher. You posed a hard question to the world and to yourself. I really had to think to formulate an answer and it challenged my ideas because I'm a huge fan of philosophy, so my instinct was to defend its necessity, but then I had to ask why... A book that I read not long ago is a good example to me why philosophy has so much value. The book is called "Where Mathematics Comes From: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being." The basic premise of the book is to question whether or not mathematics is a human construct only or whether it exists independent of us and we just discovered some of what was already there. The book transformed how I think about and view human knowledge and expanded my understanding of how we think. These ideas in and of themselves may eventually have a profound affect on the way we view behaviours and human interaction. All inquiry begins with a question and philosophy is all about questioning. Think your ideas are pretty grounded and well tested? Take a test and see... This 30 question test measures the level of tension in your belief systems and can be very enlightening. http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/check.php

Thanks for your answer, I'll have a look at that book if I can find it! I took that test but I didn't agree with the results. But I guess questioning myself and trying to justify myself are also what the test aimed at getting me to do.

Yes, for the individual, philosophy does seem useful. Too bad the fanatics and the people who need it most are generally the least likely people to study philosophy.

About our government funding art, that's also something I meant to make a thread about at some point. It's even more incomprehensible to me than philosophy!

I think the best way to study philosophy is to ask basic questions and then look at great philosophers have said about the issue. It can be extremely hard sometimes (i.e. Kant, Aristotle) and other times philosophers have remarkably clear things to say about issues that effect you. My favourite contemporary philosopher is probably Martha Nussbaum, who combines philosophy, literature and law/justice issues to look at what makes a good and complete life. I really only have time for philosophy with a practical focus and that helps me deal with the agonising pain that often comes with life; anything else is really too abstract to interest me.

One thing I forget to mention in my last waffle post was that it's quite easy to get into the comfortable view that "philosophy" is just a western (often very male) tradition. The Greeks and Europe as a whole in the classical periods, and that's it. Often just because they survive to us as texts.

Every culture, in every part of (pre)history, will have had people like them in it, doing the things we expect of them. It's also highly likely that many would have kept to themselves for fear of persecution though. Rocking the boat, never a healthy occupation!

Ashamed to say beyond a little Buddhism and Taoism I've never gone hunting for the worlds more international/continental philosophers (that were likely called something else). If it's even possible to find many, if they left anything behind beyond an oral tradition. Ooo, that sounds almost like a bit of a project.

Wisdom.

the result of appreciating love for school vs. learning ( sorry , naive wisdom... I just love bantering)

love it here , it's a gemini trait... word play.

puppyfoxette164 wrote:

Wisdom. the result of appreciating love for school vs. learning ( sorry , naive wisdom... I just love bantering) love it here , it's a gemini trait... word play.

any out growth thoughts?

moderator,

keep at bay what's this topic's fate?

Maybe it is more about states deciding WHICH research the state will fund..As money becomes tighter priority subjects will continue to be funded but stuff like the effect of outer mongolian yak milk on transcendential meditation are going to be shelved...Much of scientific research is really a luxury which is funded when there is money and not funded when there isn't..All over the world kids are demanding state funding of fees to university..To study WHAT is going to be in the criteria..Example: Two kids,,hermione and helen..Hermione is going to study mechanical engineering to keep the wheels turning,,and helen is going to devote her life to the study of the abstract in la la land..The work of hermione is related to jobs, to production,the work of helen?? Too many unemployable kids coming out of universities are going to be on unaffordable welfare...Why should Hans or Pierre or Olga Hildegard Fred have to keep working beyond retirement age to pay unemployment to graduates who have virtually no immediately useable skills???

msrocky wrote:

Thanks for the answer, it made for an interesting read, I have a few more questions though. Yes, on a personal level we must surely use philosophical thinking in order to decide what's right and wrong. But to what extent is there communication between the actual philosophical institutions at our universities and politicians deciding whether we should go to war or not? I would think it unlikely that politicians invited in philosophers before making such a decision. It seems as though issues such as what the public thinks, the cost of war and the security situation would be taken into consideration to a much larger extent? Leaving the moral issues at the decision makers personally. Do you think living a meaningful life is something that people tend to look at philosophers for help with? To me personally it seems as though my morals were more shaped by my culture and my family. It's true that philosophers have made theories and put names to concepts, but wouldn't we have thought in the same ways even if the philosophical institutions at the universities hadn't existed? Or is it so that the philosophers have influenced the laws in such ways that even our personal moral guidelines have been affected to a large extent? To me it seems as though philosophers are often stating the obvious.

Since you seem to raise a couple of questions about morality and the meaning of life, I'll try and stick with those.

I agree our moral beliefs are shaped to a large degree by both our family and also by society. A lot of this is normal and healthy since we need certain beliefs and behaviours to survive as social beings. Human beings would not live long if we killed and raped each other all the time. But the problem is a lot of our moral beliefs and intutions are often unclear and depend on vague and confused concepts. A simple example is religious morality. A religious person might say for example, abortion is wrong or homosexuality is wrong. When asked to give reasons, the religious person might say because God says it is wrong through his revelation. When asked how do they know God has told them it is wrong, it usually ends with an appeal of the type 'well, because God said it so.' A similar problem occurs in a secular context when 'God' is replaced by family, friends or society. Indeed, people like Socrates, when they asked people questions about morality and what is right and wrong, found these beliefs are confused and often built on very shaky foundations. Yet they are of critical importance since such things can influence key decisions like going to war, which cost potentially many lives.

I think something similar applies for 'meaning of life' type questions. Again to use religion, a common answer is the meaning of life is to be found in doing God's will, or following some religious pathway through life. Further questions soon end in similar appeals to authority to God or sacred texts and teachings. The same can be said when we inquire about common goals in life like wealth, career success, and so on. Aristotle demonstrated quite clearly 2,500 years ago that the things we crave today in our materialistic society (which the Greeks of his time also craved mostly as well) don't lead to happiness. Aristotle's definition of what is the final or highest good of course may be wrong, and people have many different ideas about the good life and what makes life meaningful. Where philosophy helps is to clarify these questions and offer possible answers. While it may not offer a definitive solution to moral or meaning-type questions, it is better than just blindly following the crowd and what other people say, as they can both be wrong about where your own happiness is to be found.