I was sitting on a plane last month with "Ten Great Works of Philosophy" sitting on the empty seat next to me. A guy takes a seat next to me and says, "Wow, brutal. Is that for a class or something?"

Me: No, for personal interest.

Him: Man, you philosophers just perpetuate yourselves. I mean what else is there to do with a philosophy major than teach philosophy? I mean people say you can go into law and all that stuff, but you can do all of that without a philosophy degree. Plus, I mean how practical is all that anyway?

Too many thoughts rushed through my head at once to come up with a coherent answer. And in fact I still have not come up with a coherent answer. So instead, I turn the question to you. To what extent is philosophy mere intellectual self-gratification, and to what extent might it be practically applied to the betterment of society?

Well, philosophy can be applied to so many aspects of life, basiclly anything in which you come into contact with the human race, an understanding of the creatures you encounter always gives you an edge. Philosophy can be used in interpetations of the law, so a legal career would be a good thing. Philosophy can be used in politics and the like, managment jobs, it has a wide range of pratical applications.

And how about the profession of "philosopher?" Can such a person be useful (other than a teacher) in today's society?

But taking what he knows in philosophy and applying it to other professions. Philosophy, the understanding of thought and all, is a helpful thing in any type of profession that you choose to do.

or you could write a book.

Yeah.. that's part of the plan anyway. I just wish that there were a greater respect for philosophers in the world in general. I wish philosophy was taught in high school (for like juniors and seniors) and required in college. I wish philosophers were hired to be advisors in government, and employed by big businesses to examine the logic and ethics of their ends and means. They (we?) ought to be in high demand. But alas...

Anyway I intend to realize my philosophical thought into practical action. It's just a matter of figuring it all out...

Can an English Professor be useful to society? How about an analyst on a think-tank? A Romance novelist?

There are a lot of intangibles, learning for no other purpose than learning itself, that society values. Philosophy is no different.


There've been some interesting developments in the last few years looking into how different philosophical attitudes relate to different areas of brain-function; different "ethical" questions are processed by different parts (usually the logic or empathy centers).

While an anaylist, or writer, or one who studies and teaches the speech we use to communicate in our daliy lives are more commenly accepted into soceity, a philosopher isn't, that is the point being made here I think.

Yes, but I don't think most analysts or linguists provide any more of a tangible contribution to our society than philosophers.

Hell, now that I think about it; almost everyone involved in the study of history. Very little is of any use to us, just a few military, economic, and political lessons. What do we really get from paleontology, anyway?

Well, human history is one thing, history of our earth, yes, on could make the arguement that it is of little use to us, in a tangenable sort of way. I don't think so, for I feel that the pursuit of knowalge is always a good indever, as you probably do also, but it is an interesting point.

I am a big proponent of knowledge for knowledge's sake. In that regard the study of philosophy is a wonderful thing.

However, I would argue there are some practical applications of it. Philosophy teaches the art of asking questions. The really great philosophers weren't ones who had answers necessarily, so much as looked at a situation and asked questions that no one had thought to ask before, that led mankind to a different way of interpreting their reality.

Don't people do this anyway? Isn't this the premise of the entire field of science?

Yes but science does not ask questions about religion or faith or the supernatural which philosophy can and does a lot of times.

Well for one, philosophy doesn't always ask questions about the supernatural in terms of things like ghosts and poltergeists. In fact I can't think of any "philosophy of poltergeists" off the top of my head. Some off the wall scientists DO study that kind of thing though.

Two, science DOES ask questions about religion and faith, and you can find plenty of literature in psychology, sociology, and even physics that discuss the man's belief in God and its implications.

Now granted, it might not ask religious questions about "What are we to believe?" but then again we don't need philosophy to do that either. We do that naturally.

Finally, in terms of religion, what's the use of questions if you can't pose some answers? And when it comes to providing answers about religion you have theology and religion itself to do that.

It teaches the art, not the science, of asking questions. Science can be a tad cold when comes to answers, "hard facts" and all that, science doesn't use (or rather need) humanity to answer the questions, which is a huge tagent to leave out. Humans are unpredicatble and emotional in a way that science can truly never understand, thus is the questioning fall unto philosophy.

Funny. This is the criticism leveled by artists and writers against the philosophers. They say that philosophy is too cold and rigid in its logic, and that art and literature have a much more nuanced way of portraying reality and suggesting alternate views of reality.

In this sense, philosophy gets squeezed on both ends--from by art and literature for being too rigid, and by science for being not rigid enough.

And when somthing has been a prevelant force for so long and has been squeezed by both sides, there must be some merit to it, either in substance or in the way that humans "like it"

Yeah I can’t argue that long for something that I don’t believe in at all. I think philosophy has a quite important place especially today, a time in which science has seemingly claimed a monopoly on logic and reason (i.e. the prevalent attitude that if it’s not scientific, it’s not reasonable). The scientific paradigm for approaching the world is just one paradigm, based on a number of specific beliefs about the world (that it is ordered, measurable, and knowable). Such beliefs cannot be proved, no more than the fundamental premises taken on by various philosophical belief systems. Philosophy illuminates the rationality and the characteristics of immeasurable phenomena—freedom, justice, and peace, for example.
It is still being squeezed out, however, pressured by a prevailing culture of science to use only logic as the primary way of examining and expressing our world and worldviews. This is no more apparent than in the situation of philosophy in America today, where most departments of philosophy teach analytic philosophy. Such philosophy seeks to use logic to parse arguments into mathematical proofs—reducing a beautiful piece of writing to mere “if then” statements. While indispensable and essential to exposing logical fallacies, such an approach emphatically denies the possibility that life is not always logical, and tends to pigeon-hole philosophers into criticizing with excruciatingly precise logic the simplest and narrowest of statements. It makes it more difficult for philosophy to look at the whole picture, the broader questions, which, in my opinion, has always been one of its greatest gifts. It is unfortunate that the great continental philosophers are being relegated to the archives as it were, readily dismissed as the mere “history of philosophy.”
At any rate, philosophy can be useful to the everyday person in three ways: 1. It teaches people to reason beyond the limits that science provides; 2. It calls into question the sources, consequences, and characteristics of one’s own beliefs and opinions; 3. It provides another avenue in which people can begin to see the world through the eyes of another. I think the three of these things combined make for one thing the world could use a lot more of—an antidote to ignorance, the disease that modern medicine will never be able to cure.

Philosophy also teaches us to die.

"The premeditation of death if the premeditation of liberty; he who has learned to die has unlearned to serve. There is nothing evil in life, for him who rightly comprehends that the privation of life is no evil: to know how to die, delivers us from all subjection and servitude.” - Montaigne, Essays

Which is the same as teaching us to live. To know how to die is to be able to live, my friends.

By philosophy, be it an academic study of the subject or a personal one or something in between, it matters not, either way it will improve our lives by allowing us to finally live them instead of being sheep in a large pasture.

Just a thought.

Socrates would be proud.

It is by his hand that Western philosophy is as it is. without him, none could say what we would be like.

Philo
-ORIGIN from Greek philein 'to love' or philos 'loving'.

-soph---y
-ORIGIN Greek sophisma 'clever device', from sophizesthai 'devise, become wise'.

-Philosophy
-ORIGIN Greek philosophia 'love of wisdom

Since everyone likes to be considered wise and clever and the fact that everything we do has an underlying philosophical foundation I don't understand why people scoff at it.

Besides what else would we do with our time.

Play in mud, eat rotting fruit, swing around in trees, that sort of thing :)

True, very true. But doesn’t Delta do that already. ;)

Indeed. But why should I take time out of doing that and study philosophy? Why not allocate more of my time to the activities presented?

:D

Because you are not a chimpanzee.

"Men, by nature, desire to know." -Aristotle.

Why not learn more so called "Pratical Things" such as better mud play? Why chose philosohy?

Very generally speaking, I think that question is just like the other thread we have about "Why are we inquisitive?"

I believe we "choose" philosophy the second that we become inquisitive about meaning in life.

But it need not be philosophy to discover these things. Relgion and Science can fill that gap, so why would I choose philosophy over one of those 2 more in depth?

Well, one might argue that when you pursue theology and/or science, you ARE engaging in philosophy.

But both theology and science stick to particular ways of operating (which follow from particular first principles). Philosophy as a whole allows you to compare/contrast those various systems, of which theology and science are just two options.

I grant you theology, but not so sure about science. What makes you say science is a philosophy, mind you, not the definition of the term, but the actual practical use (say in college course selection ;))

First, because science comes from philosophy. Early science was simply called "natural philosophy." Early philosophers were scientists, and vice versa. And in fact, even today, when you dig into science enough, you start asking philosophical questions. That is, when the facts stop explaining, philosophy fills in the rest--which is why physicists from Newton to Einstein to Hawking end up posing philosophical questions.

Science is great to pursue on its own because it provides facts about the natural world. However, philosophy teaches you alternate WAYS of thinking. I believe that scientists should study philosophy, if for no other reasons to learn the history of science but mainly to be able to understand and defend the underlying principles and assumptions of their practice and their way of thinking.

Back to an earlier point that you made: I still don't think religion and science cover everything that philosophy covers. You'd have to study everything to cover what philosophy covers. Does that render philosophy useless, precisely because it's merely the study of everything? No. Because it's not exactly the study of everything, although it covers everything. It covers the underlying principles and ways of investigation and areas of focus, but it does not necessarily pursue each route to its end.

I'm not writing as clearly as I'd like, so let me give examples. A philosopher will come around and 1. select an area of focus (say human nature), 2. provide a few principles about human nature, and 3. talk about how human nature can be studied.

Freud comes around and says, well let's look at the individual. I believe that there's something called the unconscious, that can be studied by intense psychotherapy. Thus psychodynamic psychology is born. Philosophers will not necessarily begin trying out psychotherapy (they'll leave that to psychology, the new field born out of philosophy). Instead, they'll attack the basic principles--namely that there's something called the unconscious.

Durkheim comes around and says that man's actions can be explained by the society he/she lives in, and decides to send out thousands of surveys measuring attitudes and beliefs. Thus sociology is born. The field of philosophy will not begin studying the surveys (they'll leave that to the sociologists). Instead, they'll discuss his basic principles--namely that man's actions can be explained by society.

I could go on and on. The basic idea is this. If you look at almost any academic discipline, you will find philosophical principles at the starting point. Pursuing that discipline will allow you to travel the road that is laid out by that discipline. Philosophy, however, allows you to question why you're on that road to begin with.

First let me say this is a very interesting thread. Some good points have been brought up all around. I also want to add that never in my life have I taken a philosophy class, or studied philosophy in any formal way. My only exposure to philosophy has been through conversations with my brother and through Jesuit priests who integrated it into their conversations and teachings on religion.

With that being said, I now work as a Career Counselor at a Jesuit college. Many of my students are philosophy majors, and as this is a Jesuit institution all students are required to take at least two semesters of philosophy. Now I personally do feel that there is value to studying philosophy, however I have had hard times articulating to my philosophy majors how they can get jobs, or why students should choose to major in philosophy in more of an "applicable" and career minded way. From another perspective I have yet to meet and have conversations with employers who are looking for people who have been taught "to die" or have learned the "art of asking questions". Lastly, I'm not sure if studying philosophy because "what else would [you] do with [your] time" would be a great response to prospective students and/or their parents who pay close to 40 grand to come here.

So I'm not asking for anyone to convince me that philosophy is valuable. I'm looking to you, philosophy lovers to give me some tangible and compelling reasons as to how studying philosophy would be beneficial when students are looking for jobs, and when employers are looking for good hires. Why would I choose to hire a philosophy major over a business major for a business job? What careers or fields exist that would demonstrate preference for a student and major in philosophy over other majors?

DJKali more or less hit what I was trying to say before. Yea, I like philosophy and all, but how is it a better choice than another feild I could be going into for college?

I consider philosophy a hobby and would not even think to take it as a collage major.

the only reason I could see majoring in philosophy is to create more philosophers. And if your not going to teach then it is more insulting to the art to learn it and not try improve self and society by using it to in an other field of work. for philosophy in its self is of no use, but must be applied to life.

You may go into business, or law, and in doing so you would study the greats in the field and learn how to be successful in each. If you go into philosophy, even just take a few classes in philosophy, you learn how to think critically for yourself. In business you would learn how to make more money, with business and philosophy you might learn how to maximize profit while maintaining your integrity. In law you learn how to win cases, with philosophy you may learn how to win cases while maintaining integrity – I would also imagine that you would be a better lawyer tanks to the use of reason in philosophy.

Perhaps, like myself, you simply enjoy the study of philosophy. In such a case you go into the field for your own personal interests regardless of the money or fame or whatever may be offered by other fields simply because you enjoy philosophy. Often majoring in philosophy leaves few options for a career (teaching being the primary). If one enjoys philosophy and would like to teach it, then a Ph.D. in philosophy might be an excellent choice.

If you want to supplement another field, philosophy is an excellent choice, or if you enjoy the study taking courses in philosophy would also be an excellent choice.

Personally, I enjoy the subject and I enjoy teaching, so philosophy is a natural move for me.

Plus, very few people actually take life-long careers in the fields they studied in college. And there are relatively few jobs that REQUIRE particular majors. So why not study philosophy?

I'll answer DJ Kali's questions later...

Well this goes for many majors. Why study history, english, theology, classics, or language, unless you apply it to something else? But just because you need to apply it to something else doesn't mean that it's not worth studying in and of itself.

Aside from what Agora_admin said about studying it simply because you love it and philosophy being applicable in just about every field, I'd like to answer DJ Kali's questions.

As for a tangible, "practical," reason for studying philosophy, philosophy majors consistently score higher than all other majors on most post-graduate exams, including the GRE's, the LSAT's, and the GMAT's. Since many graduate programs (law school, for example) often do not require particular classes (unlike medicine), students may want to study philosophy in order to do well in these exams.

Part of why they do so well is the training in critical thinking skills. The combination of studying logic, examinating arguments, and exploring the starting principles of particular worldviews allows philosophy majors to more readily cut through sophistry and appeals to emotion and get to the heart of the issue. This is invaluable in law, politics, and cultural issues, where arguments are made that appeal to emotion, rather than logic. If a student wants to go into these fields, philosophy is a great field to study.

Students hoping to go into cultural studies or any sort of social science ought to consider studying philosophy. First, studying philosophy provides a historical context for the particular worldviews that the modern world espouses, and allows students to examine the underlying principles upon which modern social sciences are founded. Plus, modern political theory, much of foundational psychological and sociological theory, and even economic theory have at some point come from philosophy. Because of this, philosophy majors are quite adept at identifying the philosophical differences among the various social sciences.

Well obviously it depends on the field. If you're NASA, I don't know exactly why you'd hire a philosophy major over an engineering major. But in terms of why employers generally should hire a philosophy major, I would answer that employers that are looking for critical thinkers ought to consider philosophy majors. Philosophy majors may often be open-minded, since they have examined so many different worldviews. Employers looking for open-minded students should consider philosophy majors. Another big thing about philosophy majors is that they tend to be more intrinsicly motivated than other majors. In other words, most philosophy majors actually don't study philosophy in order to get a good job, but out of a sense of self-fulfillment. Many students take their major grudgingly, and study only out of the external need to get good grades. This type of external motivation translates into the work world. Employers are always thinking of how to provide more and more external motivation (higher pay, chances for advancement). This problem is mitigated to an extent if your employees are intrinsicly motivated.

As for fields, I've mentioned law, politics, and the social sciences. As for other careers, I believe that careers in education, law enforcement (again because of the critical examination of issues), and social advocacy. Advertising might be good, insofar as philosophy majors can examine how a particular good/service might appeal to people given a particular social, political, economic, and psychological situation (since philosophy often covers all of these fields). Philosophy majors might also consider opportunities like the Peace Corps and other service opportunities, again because of the tendency towards exploring new ideas and new experiences.

Hope this helps.

I've never studied philosophy although I did take an ethics course. My nursing classes started with learning the different philosophies in application. Most of the great institutions I've been to have an outline of their philosophy posted. It seems to me that everything new starts from an abstract thought then an examination of how to apply it & what is the desired goal. A philosophy or an examination is needed to outline application. Without philosophy nothing new is applied. Its the cornerstone of civilization. Everything organized starts from an abstract thought then philosophy or philosophical examination then application.

We have justified to some extent the worth of studying philosophy as a means to some other end. But what about the field of philosophy as a whole? What value is there in having a whole group of academics dedicated to studying Heidegger's influence on Derrida or Hegel's influence on Marx? Is academic philosophy as a profession valuable, and if so, how?

If we don't examine our thoughts, how can we learn from them, or measure ourselves by them?