There seems to be quite a few people on this forum who have an interest in philosophy (or at least like to name-drop philosophers). I understand how it can be an interesting area to study, but I fail to see any practical use of it. At the moment I'm quite negative towards philosophy as anything other than a 'hobby', but I've decided to give the area the benefit of the doubt. Maybe someone can help to answer my questions!

What justifies the state giving grants to philosophers so they can continue their "work" in this field?
What use can philosophy be to society?

to explain the fascination of anything so vast as the universe, in my humble opinion...

generation per generation what traditional truths may or may still hold true for the generation till next generation if philosophy is your cup of tea...


I'm praise you for having the guts to take up engineering and more praises still for applying engineering come future time...being female...


Me, I'll just stick to the twist of being interested in still great minds from the history to the making fo future history till the day I'll be concious hey, I'm still learning ...live life indeed to the fullest.

try Cybernetics... if I may say so...but then it's still a man's world on mother earth.

This feels like a bit of a "What have the Romans ever done for us?" kinda thread! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

Philosophy is just a word, to love wisdom. However, curiosity, inquiry, awe and wonder are present in all of us, and far more ancient. If you take it refer to, in part, that element of us then historically (and before we recorded it) you can perhaps point to a great deal of value to us as a species down the years, when it was a more inclusive study.

Today however, you can also say that what is left to philosophy as subject matter, that which hasn't been converted to subjects in themselves down the years, has been discussed so much that we've rather flogged the horse to a point we could stop.

Still, we're always out there, being curious, digging up new crud. It's hardly as if the topics of old, which were once more officially in it's purview have been solved to our satisfaction? We still love to bicker!

Sophist wrote:

This feels like a bit of a "What have the Romans ever done for us?" kinda thread! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso Philosophy is just a word, to love wisdom. However, curiosity, inquiry, awe and wonder are present in all of us, and far more ancient. If you take it refer to, in part, that element of us then historically (and before we recorded it) you can perhaps point to a great deal of value to us as a species down the years, when it was a more inclusive study. Today however, you can also say that what is left to philosophy as subject matter, that which hasn't been converted to subjects in themselves down the years, has been discussed so much that we've rather flogged the horse to a point we could stop. Still, we're always out there, being curious, digging up new crud. It's hardly as if the topics of old, which were once more officially in it's purview have been solved to our satisfaction? We still love to bicker!

Yes I do see that in the olden days, philosophy might have been useful as the sciences weren't as divided back then (as far as I know). But the question is what it could possibly bring us in the future?

It seems as though it would be more relevant to focus on physics and real sciences that have a more practical use to us today. As for people who "love to bicker" (and there is nothing wrong with that), should they really be paid to do so? I don't see why the state should pay for these people 'having fun' when the philosophers don't seem to be able to give anything back that is of use.

Quote:

Yes I do see that in the olden days, philosophy might have been useful as the sciences weren't as divided back then (as far as I know). But the question is what it could possibly bring us in the future? It seems as though it would be more relevant to focus on physics and real sciences that have a more practical use to us today. As for people who "love to bicker" (and there is nothing wrong with that), should they really be paid to do so? I don't see why the state should pay for these people 'having fun' when the philosophers don't seem to be able to give anything back that is of use.

Are the "real sciences" their own arbiters for whether they should pursue certain aspects of their fields? Do they need a watchdog if you will? Should is one of those tricky words after all!

Even modern philosophers, by which, most of 'em think the last hundred years or so I suppose have been quite instrumental in politics and legal matters. Discussions on "rights" for instance.

Without knowing precisely where we are headed not going to be able to answer that one for you. But might as well keep a few around, they've had their uses in the past! They might come in handy to dust off and employ if we ever bump into another life form of comparable or better intelligence than us!

Sophist wrote:

Are the "real sciences" their own arbiters for whether they should pursue certain aspects of their fields? Do they need a watchdog if you will? Should is one of those tricky words after all! Even modern philosophers, by which, most of 'em think the last hundred years or so I suppose have been quite instrumental in politics and legal matters. Discussions on "rights" for instance. Without knowing precisely where we are headed not going to be able to answer that one for you. But might as well keep a few around, they've had their uses in the past! They might come in handy to dust off and employ if we ever bump into another life form of comparable or better intelligence than us!

I don't think the real sciences are comparable to philosophy. The methodology is very different and more goal-oriented. Even if the results aren't what was expected, there is still a result. Clearly the result/funding ratio of science is higher than that of philosophy.
And (at least in Sweden), science is for the most part controlled by the government. The seemingly useful areas get more grants than the more theoretical areas.

And as for philosophy being relevant to politics, I very much doubt that. In practice I doubt there is much interaction between the philosophical institutions and politicians. When it comes to legal matters, I'm not sure as I'm not familiar with legal educations.

Could you (or anyone) give an example of when contemporary philosophy has been used in practise in modern times?

Will try and dig up some examples up for you later, got to get off my backside and actually do something!

By the way, I forgot to mention (on topic for a change!) that the vast majority of modern philosophers are or were actually just academics, they spend most of their time as teachers of historical material. As such they kinda support themselves!

Nothing wrong with that, after all we still have Latin transmitted down the generations too!

msrocky wrote:

Sophist wrote: Are the "real sciences" their own arbiters for whether they should pursue certain aspects of their fields? Do they need a watchdog if you will? Should is one of those tricky words after all! Even modern philosophers, by which, most of 'em think the last hundred years or so I suppose have been quite instrumental in politics and legal matters. Discussions on "rights" for instance. Without knowing precisely where we are headed not going to be able to answer that one for you. But might as well keep a few around, they've had their uses in the past! They might come in handy to dust off and employ if we ever bump into another life form of comparable or better intelligence than us! I don't think the real sciences are comparable to philosophy. The methodology is very different and more goal-oriented. Even if the results aren't what was expected, there is still a result. Clearly the result/funding ratio of science is higher than that of philosophy. And (at least in Sweden), science is for the most part controlled by the government. The seemingly useful areas get more grants than the more theoretical areas. And as for philosophy being relevant to politics, I very much doubt that. In practice I doubt there is much interaction between the philosophical institutions and politicians. When it comes to legal matters, I'm not sure as I'm not familiar with legal educations. Could you (or anyone) give an example of when contemporary philosophy has been used in practise in modern times?

I'm not sure what kind of proof you're looking for, but here goes. I think you've got the wrong idea.
Philosophy exists in every methodology. In all sciences.
PhD is Latin but it translates to a Doctor of Philosophy.

You can get one in Political sciences, Various Languages, Art, history, mathematics, new and developing science fields.
Philosophy is all about a rational argument and love for wisdom.
In order for someone to get a PhD in something they must be willing to rationalize and put the time in to learn things to their utmost recency i.e a love for the field of study.

There is also philosophy of law called Jurisprudence which questions "what law is" and "what it should be."
Politicians actually have to deal with philosophical problems all the time, but mostly it's the high courts job to see if what the politicians made into law is actually philosophically correct given the document of the country.

I think the Philosophy you were talking about are the religious and social ones, Sociology, Political Sciences and Theology majors
those are just part of a vast array of subjects that fall in the wording what we call philosophy.

Without getting too involved, I think philosophy (at least in a traditional sense) is very practical. One area of key concern in philosophy is ethics, i.e. the principles of conduct that are 'wrong' and 'right.' We see huge and constant debates in society over everything from whether it is right to go to war to fight terrorism to whether abortion should be legal or illegal. I can also say, as someone schooled in law, ethics plays an absolutely vital role in making proper judgements and lawyers without it get disbarred. No-one goes through life without making ethical and moral decisions so even at this level, philosophy is incredibly 'practical', much more so than something like theoretical astrophysics, relativistic cosmology, topology, advanced calculus, and so on (which would only be mastered by a small minority of people in any time).

Philosophy has also been traditionally concerned with questions such as how to live a good and meaningful life. While the sciences bring remarkable discoveries and benefits, they can't tell you how to live a good life. Philosophers have offered some very profound and meaningful analysis into what might constitute a flourishing life, that a rational person can accept without having to accept the irrational notion of an ethics or life philosophy based purely on faith. Ancient Western Greek and Roman Philosophy was aimed at helping people live a good life that involved rational understanding of the universe; Epicurus (a Hellenistic Philosopher) apparently said Philosophy that does not help cure someon's pain is useless.

Science itself also arose originally from Philosophers, particularly the schools of philosophy in Ionia. The notions used by modern science, like the universe being part of a rational order we can understand, things like forces and subatomic particles existing, and the utility of mathematics in describing nature, all came from explorations and ideas of ancient philosophers like Thales, Zeno, Pythagoras, Democritus, and so on. Scientists have not been unwilling to acknowledge this heritage.

Philosophy is also useful in the tools of argument and logic. Many key developments in modern mathematics and computation would not have occured without discoveries of logicians like Frege or the work they inspired. At a more practical level, we need rigorous argument to decide which argument is more truthful than another, and this is vital from being able to think critically about what politicians, advertisers, spin doctors, and lawyers may say, and to form a good judgment on the evidence before us.

I've never had any worries about Philosophy being a practical subject. Indeed, I study it because it is very practical.

Endr wrote:

I'm not sure what kind of proof you're looking for, but here goes. I think you've got the wrong idea. Philosophy exists in every methodology. In all sciences. PhD is Latin but it translates to a Doctor of Philosophy. You can get one in Political sciences, Various Languages, Art, history, mathematics, new and developing science fields. Philosophy is all about a rational argument and love for wisdom. In order for someone to get a PhD in something they must be willing to rationalize and put the time in to learn things to their utmost recency i.e a love for the field of study. There is also philosophy of law called Jurisprudence which questions "what law is" and "what it should be." Politicians actually have to deal with philosophical problems all the time, but mostly it's the high courts job to see if what the politicians made into law is actually philosophically correct given the document of the country. I think the Philosophy you were talking about are the religious and social ones, Sociology, Political Sciences and Theology majors those are just part of a vast array of subjects that fall in the wording what we call philosophy.

Thanks for your answer. You are right, I was mostly focusing on Sociology, Political Sciences and Theology.
I'm not trying to prove that my own opinions about philosophy are right, I don't have sufficient knowledge of the field. I'm only trying to understand it.

When looking at the work at the philosophical institution at Stockholm University (http://www.philosophy.su.se/nedladdningar/vt-12/forskrapport_pf.pdf), it does seem likely that some of the material can be used by the high courts and in legislation. Other topics seem more unclear.

Some of the projects at SU seem to be carried out with the intention of getting a result that can be used in practice:

Quote:

11. Philosophy and Economics. This is a Franco-Swedish bilateral program which started 2012 funded by Riksbankens Jubileumsfond and Fondation Maison des sciences de l'homme. The main aim of this interdisciplinary program is to bring moral and political philosophy and economic theory to bear on the analysis, justification and criticism of political and economic institutions and public policies.

Does anyone know if it's generally so that the state decides what kind of research is to be made at these institutions? I had an idea of the projects generally being less about reaching a specific goal and specific practical uses but maybe this is wrong?