[PUG] Usefulness of Philosophy

[BenW]

"His direct responses indicate that apparently a lobotomized sense of humor comes with a Philosophy degree. His final response was an attempt to assert that the burden of proof is on me, when in reality I never suggested that professors are useless, I just contended that the statement "we can't pay these people enough" or whatever it was was ill founded. Those that are actually great professors do get paid well, those that are mediocre get mediocre wages. Moreover most of the mediocre ones are being supported by a highly speculative inflation of the value of a college degree. They're employees at a company [university] that produces certifications [degrees] that are losing value both because the standard to get a degree is getting lower and the market is becoming saturated. My only REAL assertion here is that university degrees used to be highly correlated with upper-percentile talent and motivation, but they are increasingly less so and instead we'll have to start biting our lips and actually measuring said motivation and talent instead of blindly hiring degree-holders.

Namely, you can't escape having some philosophy in your personal life, and it does nothing good to not optimize your philosophies to live a life in accordance with your goals and the goals of humanity.

"Opportunity cost. Optimizing personal philosophies (whatever that means, define please) costs time that could otherwise be put toward other endeavors. I'd contend that spending four years and the cost of a degree optimizing personal philosophies is a little overkill."

If there is another class of people who are best suited to this, then please enlighten me, I'll change my life's goal from academia to this other class"

"Anyone who has the motivation and desire to do so. Philosophy is a particularly unconvincing field to appeal to academia for since the only tools you need to... philosophize are your brain and a library. If you're doing something more along the lines of hard science or engineering, then the argument that you need exposure to non-trivially expensive equipment holds water. However I think that you could have done most of that stuff in high school in an ideal educational system, and anyway universities acting as a hub for education is not equivalent to them stamping out degrees for anyone who drags their feet on through the door."

Wait...you do understand the history of cryptanalysis and number theory, right?

"Math has always been ahead of engineering, that's what happens when you get Gauss, Euler, Riemann and Hilbert before you get any feasible physical application of the _extremely general_ theorems they proved. It's no wonder that uses for very precise statements about very general objects eventually came in handy when we had machines that could calculate very precise statements very quickly. Or when we had a physicist who had some ideas about spacetime curvature and, whadya know, Hilbert spaces sure are handy aren't they? However the _mass majority_ of new knowledge from academia or otherwise is explicitly for the purpose of solving some salient problem. Math having early results with late applications is basically a fluke. Certainly if somehow math had been laid aside and left undeveloped until it was needed, it wouldn't have taken long for someone to come up with the results that were computationally obvious and frankly not that difficult to prove. I know, I've proved them. I've done DSA encryption by hand; it was not fun. If you want examples of branches of math that came after the relevant technology, check out the work of Church, Turing and friends. They were building computers just about as quickly as they could prove interesting results about them, finding their way all the way to the P=NP problem (still the defining problem of computer science) and also making relevant proofs about the behavior of the lambda calculus and associated type systems.

I just want to add that I didn't see the comment about burger-flipping before I ranted, I saw the response about not being able to pay professors enough. I think that statement holds a lot of truth for k-12 education, but that the easiest way to improve college educations would be to shoot for a 50% failure rate. If you fail, choose another school that's a little easier and try again. Or maybe you should just do something you love and try to figure out how to make money off it instead; a passion for a subject is much more valuable than anything a university professor can ever give you. Once you have it you'll either blast through school and quickly realize your courses are dumbing down things you want to dive deeper into, or you'll strike out on your own and realize that your passion has market value and you can leverage it into a comfortable lifestyle. Forgive me for being a slave to the big bad corporations. I for one refuse to work on anything I don't love, so I started my own big bad corporation in order to play by my own rules. I didn't need a degree to do it, and I don't regret a day of work that I do.

Oh yeah, ONE MORE THING.

I think 39407.05 Bill Gates'es should get as much as one senior shepherd

"YOU LEAVE BILL GATES ALONE. Bill Gates is a fucking SAINT. That man created an entire industry from scratch using nothing but hard work, intelligence, and balls. You might find some trivial fault with his product (like that affects his integrity), or be jealous of his accomplishments, but your valuation of him is pathetic. He took a fortune that he was legally entitled to spend on hookers and coke and gave every cent of it to an organization dedicated to improving human living conditions in the third world, and doing so LOGICALLY by using venture capital style research grants. When you spend over 60 billion of your own dollars to fund purely philanthropic ventures for people who can't help themselves, you come back and tell me that Bill Gates doesn't deserve what he got.

P.S. BillG didn't need to go to university to do it, either. ZING."

He says if he is motived enough to reply again, he'll actually make an account.
Which is good, this is weird.

 

[Duty]

"His direct responses indicate that apparently a lobotomized sense of humor comes with a Philosophy degree. His final response was an attempt to assert that the burden of proof is on me, when in reality I never suggested that professors are useless, I just contended that the statement "we can't pay these people enough" or whatever it was was ill founded.

Apparently a pure math degree comes with a general lack of reading comprehension (I hope not...the general lack of interest in paying logicians means I may have to take that route myself).

Where in the world did you get this idea that I think "We can't pay these people enough?" Never said anything like that. They should be paid based on their merit like anyone else. However, I don't think any single professor should get paid anything near what a "burger-flipper" gets paid...which was BenW's original assertion.

Those that are actually great professors do get paid well, those that are mediocre get mediocre wages. Moreover most of the mediocre ones are being supported by a highly speculative inflation of the value of a college degree. They're employees at a company [university] that produces certifications [degrees] that are losing value both because the standard to get a degree is getting lower and the market is becoming saturated. My only REAL assertion here is that university degrees used to be highly correlated with upper-percentile talent and motivation, but they are increasingly less so and instead we'll have to start biting our lips and actually measuring said motivation and talent instead of blindly hiring degree-holders.

Well, we're in actual agreement here. I think the market value has moved to higher-level universities (MIT vs University of Alaska) which employ the better professors. I don't think "socialized higher education" is a bad thing, as long as its lower, most likely public university levels are separated from the ones that are for people that want to do a lot more.

Opportunity cost. Optimizing personal philosophies (whatever that means, define please) costs time that could otherwise be put toward other endeavors. I'd contend that spending four years and the cost of a degree optimizing personal philosophies is a little overkill.

No, no, that's not my point. Studying for four years on such a thing just to improve your personal level of this is indeed overkill. I think the study of philosophy is useful to each person though (just not a major in it unless you intend on a career in academia), and having a professional philosophy class to advance the field is helpful in that endeavor.

Society is forced to work through the scope of a philosophy, I think it's useful to society to have people to lead the optimization of it.



Just out of curiosity, where did you get your degree from? What level did you attain (just a BS? or did you go to a graduate degree?).

 

[enfp can be shy]

"YOU LEAVE BILL GATES ALONE. Bill Gates is a fucking SAINT. That man created an entire industry from scratch using nothing but hard work, intelligence, and balls. You might find some trivial fault with his product (like that affects his integrity), or be jealous of his accomplishments, but your valuation of him is pathetic. He took a fortune that he was legally entitled to spend on hookers and coke and gave every cent of it to an organization dedicated to improving human living conditions in the third world, and doing so LOGICALLY by using venture capital style research grants. When you spend over 60 billion of your own dollars to fund purely philanthropic ventures for people who can't help themselves, you come back and tell me that Bill Gates doesn't deserve what he got.

P.S. BillG didn't need to go to university to do it, either. ZING."

Oh, I'm sure stealing and promoting a couple of ideas, destroying some creative people for the sake of winning the competition, and manipulating national administrations to adopt sub-optimal software systems, were all the markings of a highly gifted individual. But which exactly of his broad variety of superior qualities guaranteed him the authority to decide how should those in need be best helped?

 

[Kaipaus]

I think that philosophy is very important and has a valuable role in society. The role of the philosophy of science and ethics is especially easy to see in my opinion. Besides, the importance of philosophy is not necessarily its use as a tool for something else, but its value in itself. I just wish that philosophers would interact with the unacademic world more, be more like Socrates. I'm not saying that they'd have to make philosophy easy to digest for the masses, nothing like "America's Next Top Philosopher". Even if it may seem so, masses aren't completely brainless.

As a school subject, philosophy is very important. It can inspire and motivate kids and make them understand things like ethics a bit more. I'm sure that these things happen in other school subjects, as well, but the root of asking any questions at all lies in the tradition of philosophy. If people are not taught philosophy, they are not taught the roots of human culture.

To me, nearly everything that inspires is philosophy. If a piece of art inspires me, it is because it provokes thoughts and interpretations in me. Or feelings, the meaning of which I then like to interpret on the level of thought. If a piece of fiction inspires me, it is because it provokes thoughts and interpretations, as well. This may not be the case for everyone but as long as there are people like me in the world, philosophy is very important for the sheer wellbeing of us

 

[the]

My capabilities for critical thinking along with my knowledge of logic/logical fallacies has substantially increased my capacity to understand and analyze any situation, science, etc that I encounter.

Second, I think it just makes me a better citizen. I can critically examine...question...the bullshit we are fed on a daily basis.

Third, philosophy has amplified my love of truth. In the mindset of philosophy, I feel I reach more truth...truth that I can be sure is truth...far beyond what people with no love of philosophy could ever reach. It has enriched and enhanced my intellect.

Last, it guides me in examining other areas of knowledge. Philosophy is largely about methodology: how do we best go about doing the things we do?

It sounds like philosophy has had a great effect in your life. How is it that you have determined that you are good at it?

 

[sookie]

I think that we all use philosophy or get philosophical about things way more than we realize. I think that some shows that are popular gain popularity because they may be somewhat philosophical. I am thinking about Oprah when I say this. I have to admit that I do not watch her show anymore.

I think that philosophy is our way of trying to discover the meaning of life, the value of what we do and how we interact with otherrs. Wasn't the Hippocratic Oath that Doctors take born from philosophy? (I am not sure and my computer is too slow for me to look it up, lol)

I just wanted to through my philosophical hat in the ring!

 

[sookie]

I wonder...I think metaphors can be very philosophical

 

[Duty]

It sounds like philosophy has had a great effect in your life. How is it that you have determined that you are good at it?

Well, being "good at it" is a subjective judgment on my part. I've merely read analytic philosophy and thought of solutions to the questions asked. Many times I've proved to myself that the author must be in error and then I put forward a better argument. I've had quite a few moments where my view of the world or some individual subject changed immensely (most satisfying feeling in the world tbh), and some were due to my own efforts to form philosophy, not merely reading the opinions of others.

Plus, I'm really good at mathematical logic. I took a logic class in the brief time I went to college and absolutely demolished the course (we only went up to the propositional calculus though). The instructor started to teach me predicate logic in our own free time because she was so impressed with me. I found the class exceedingly easy to be honest, and if it is any indicator of how good I am in comparison to the rest of the human race, then I'd say I'm really good at it (the rest of the class really struggled with simple propositional logic).

Additionally I enjoy it a ton...I continue to study it on my own time to this day. I've given up the study of philosophy atm because logic, mathematics, and cognitive science (which is honestly the science side of epistemology) are most interesting to me, and I've had doubts about how I could contribute by being a philosopher.

However, cognitive science isn't quite interesting enough to hold my interest for the years I'd go through college. I find it easy, I'm not bad at it (it's more memorization and knowing experimental techniques then anything else...not hard). Logic/set theory/number theory are more interesting to me and I could probably do them over a lifetime. Philosophy is an oddity, as I really enjoy it and get a lot out of it, just...well, I've already explained and BenW's friend is proof of what I'm up against when trying to convince people of philosophy's usefulness and why you should hear what I have to say on the subject.


Sorry that I data dumped...INTP habit. >.<

 

[Norton]

Too few people are willing to think hard and critically. A good philosophy course teaches that if you're willing to learn.

 

[Roger]

I am a former philosophy major, and have studied the subject on my own extensively. Even though I do not actively study it anymore (the reason for that is the subject of this thread), I am really really good at it.

My problem with philosophy is its usefulness to society and people. The cold, hard fact is that no one cares to listen to philosophers: they don't solve problems.

I was discussing this with my ENTP girlfriend, and she said: "Well, philosophy is a tool. Just because no one buys it doesn't mean it's not the right tool for the job."

I responded, "Problem is that philosophy is a tool that is too expensive and would have to run to the store to be bought. People rather do a crummy, lazy do-it-yourself job by just letting religion and society do their thinking for them. It's much easier and they don't care for a nice finished product."


So although I love the subject, know the subject, and am better at it then any other interest of mine, I'm not at all convinced of its usefulness. Additionally, it doesn't any longer appeal to my NT need for "wizardry" (it's the desire of every NT to be seen as a wizard/expert at some skill), as it doesn't produce marvelous things like electrical engineering or astrophysics.

What do you all think? Is philosophy useful? Is it useful to society or just individuals? Do philosophers leave the world a better place? I'd love to be convinced.

I think philosophy demands huge interest. It depends on others, they are wanting for it or no. Otherwise, you know it will be avoided. We build philosophy of ourselves in our mind, because we want to live our life as we want. We have to change it time by time.

People avoid trying philosophy of others because they don't want to change or they are jealous of it or may be for another reason.

But i am saying continue spreading your philosophy without expecting any response for it. It will work for anyone, i am sure. Carry on this wonderful task of sharing philosophy. Make threads and let us know about it, what you think, at least we will know what changes we need.