Philosophy...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It seems like most philosophers spend all their time engaged in hairsplitting, subjecting every argument to a veritable autopsy. It’s a time-consuming, laborious enterprise that calls to mind the aphorism Ars longa, vita brevis. Personally I don’t have the requisite patience for it, and I find that most philosophers are ponderous writers. There are a few exceptions: Nietzsche, for example (though, technically he wasn’t even a philosopher), or Bertrand Russell, or more recently Daniel Dennett.

"If it's useful, it's not philosophy."

[VazScep]

"If it's useful, it's not philosophy."

I tend to avoid things I can't find a use for, which covers some of the philosophy I have read. It might even cover most of the philosophical literature out there. However, I've found much of the writing in philosophy of mind and philosophy of mathematics useful, serving as rationalisations to persue certain research programmes and avoid others. I found Richard Rorty useful. He helped me stop taking analytic philosophy seriously, and to start being more playful with language and accept the irony of having convinction in a world that cares little about humans and the sounds they make.

Lots of things are useful though. What I do resent is the idea that philosophy subsumes other subjects, because it has some claim to have spawned them or merely because it has a subfield which claims to be its metanalysis.

[FBM]

We have philosophy to thank for a clear system of critical thought and skepticism. Critical thinking doesn't just spontaneously appear one day in any individual. It's a skill that has to be studied, practiced before it's mastered. Some of us on this forum are better at it than others, and almost any one of us here is better at it than any almost theist, if for no other reason that we apply that critical reasoning to ourselves, our ontology, rather than keeping it distant as an intellectual exercise. The scientific method is an exercise in critical thinking and skepticism that developed out of the works of Aristotle and others. Mathematics, astronomy and most other sciences have their origins in philosophy, way back when those weren't departmentalized into different specializations. Philosophy that can be applied to one's life and guide one's decision-making is not only useful, it's fun, interesting and challenging. Philosophy that's useful for nothing more than crafting words to do combat with another philosopher's carefully crafted words is as useless as tits on a boar hog, and much more annoying.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"If it's useful, it's not philosophy."

I tend to avoid things I can't find a use for, which covers some of the philosophy I have read. It might even cover most of the philosophical literature out there. However, I've found much of the writing in philosophy of mind and philosophy of mathematics useful, serving as rationalisations to persue certain research programmes and avoid others. I found Richard Rorty useful. He helped me stop taking analytic philosophy seriously, and to start being more playful with language and accept the irony of having convinction in a world that cares little about humans and the sounds they make.

Lots of things are useful though. What I do resent is the idea that philosophy subsumes other subjects, because it has some claim to have spawned them or merely because it has a subfield which claims to be its metanalysis.

It really annoys me that philosophers lay claim what is simply thinking about something. It strikes me as very similar to the theists claiming that "God" touches all aspects of my life.

[Coito ergo sum]

It seems like most philosophers spend all their time engaged in hairsplitting, subjecting every argument to a veritable autopsy. It’s a time-consuming, laborious enterprise that calls to mind the aphorism Ars longa, vita brevis. Personally I don’t have the requisite patience for it, and I find that most philosophers are ponderous writers. There are a few exceptions: Nietzsche, for example (though, technically he wasn’t even a philosopher), or Bertrand Russell, or more recently Daniel Dennett.

The absolute KING of ponderous philosophical writers: I nominate J.P. Sartre.

[Coito ergo sum]

It seems like most philosophers spend all their time engaged in hairsplitting, subjecting every argument to a veritable autopsy. It’s a time-consuming, laborious enterprise that calls to mind the aphorism Ars longa, vita brevis. Personally I don’t have the requisite patience for it, and I find that most philosophers are ponderous writers. There are a few exceptions: Nietzsche, for example (though, technically he wasn’t even a philosopher), or Bertrand Russell, or more recently Daniel Dennett.

"If it's NOT useful, it's not GOOD philosophy."

[charlou]

"If it's useful, it's not philosophy."

I tend to avoid things I can't find a use for, which covers some of the philosophy I have read. It might even cover most of the philosophical literature out there. However, I've found much of the writing in philosophy of mind and philosophy of mathematics useful, serving as rationalisations to persue certain research programmes and avoid others. I found Richard Rorty useful. He helped me stop taking analytic philosophy seriously, and to start being more playful with language and accept the irony of having convinction in a world that cares little about humans and the sounds they make.

Lots of things are useful though. What I do resent is the idea that philosophy subsumes other subjects, because it has some claim to have spawned them or merely because it has a subfield which claims to be its metanalysis.

It really annoys me that philosophers lay claim what is simply thinking about something. It strikes me as very similar to the theists claiming that "God" touches all aspects of my life.

Yes, good analogy ... There's a dogmatic aspect to it, too ... and I don't think it's just philosphers and theists who indulge in dogmatic thinking and behaviour.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It seems like most philosophers spend all their time engaged in hairsplitting, subjecting every argument to a veritable autopsy. It’s a time-consuming, laborious enterprise that calls to mind the aphorism Ars longa, vita brevis. Personally I don’t have the requisite patience for it, and I find that most philosophers are ponderous writers. There are a few exceptions: Nietzsche, for example (though, technically he wasn’t even a philosopher), or Bertrand Russell, or more recently Daniel Dennett.

"If it's NOT useful, it's not GOOD philosophy."

Somebody to take you to the vet and have you fixed.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It really annoys me that philosophers lay claim what is simply thinking about something. It strikes me as very similar to the theists claiming that "God" touches all aspects of my life.

Yes, good analogy ... There's a dogmatic aspect to it, too ... and I don't thing it's just philosphers and theists who indulge in dogmatic thinking and behaviour.

I'm waiting for the book Philosophy and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

[Rum]

In its defence, I think it is safe to assume we are the only creatures on the planet who have the capacity to wonder what we are and what it means to be us and what the universe is and how it got here. And perhaps 'why' too. For all we know we are the only creatures in the universe who can (though I don't believe that).

The Greeks managed to scrabble out of the poo of superstition a little and create rules for formal logic and structures reasoned thinking. It is quite an achievement when you think about it.

Whether it amounts to a hill of beans at the end of the day is another matter I suppose.

[Azathoth]

What are we? Clever primates
Why are we here? To make more clever primates

Now go and do something useful

[Coito ergo sum]

I think it's up to you whether you want to give away philosophy to the Philosophy Professors and say that they are the only ones philosophizing. In my view, anytime we think about why or how we came to be, what we should do, the nature of write and wrong, the nature of being and nothingness, man vs man, man vs nature, man vs himself, epistemology (how we know what we know), etc., we are philosophizing. We don't have to use fancy language to do it, either.

It's the same thing with subjects like history. We get raised thinking that these subjects aren't entertaining, that they are work, that they are somehow outside the realm of real experience.

Philosophy, history, and all the other major disciplines, are not outside of the common experience. It is a failing of our system that we bastardize these subjects so much in schools that people find them distasteful. When I read classical Greek philosophy in school, the school made it tedious. When I went back and read Plato's Socratic Dialogues for fun, I found them fascinating and very quick and understandable reads.

[ScholasticSpastic]

I use philosophy every day. Specifically, I go in for Methodological Naturalism. It's the philosophy lay-people call Science. It works, bitches.

[Hermit]

...What's the fucking point? Who benefits from it and how?

Ultimately, mankind benefits through an increase in collective knowledge, learning and analysis truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct as well as the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, especially with a view to improving or reconstituting them.

Any individual who tries to learn about the truths and principles concerning our "being" (how and why we're here), our "knowledge" (how we know what we know) and/or "conduct" (what is right to do and what is wrong to do) is philosophizing. He or she benefits from philosophy by learning or attempting to learn these things.

EDIT: I think most of you are missing it - philosophy is a kind of study/learning. A person philosophizes when they contemplate, think about or try to learn about why we're here, what is moral/immoral, what is ethical/unethical and how we know things, as well as ultimate purposes and that kind of thing. The different major "philosophies" like "Epicureanism", "Stoicism," "Existentialism," and the myriad other philosophies out there are theories and frameworks of how the basic questions of how we know what we know, what we can know, what is good and bad, what is moral and immoral, where does morality come from, etc., what is the nature of reality, etc. - these are attempts at answering certain of these questions. Philosophy is not limited to a profession of Philosophers. It's something that's open to everyone ,and it's something everyone does from time to time often without even knowing it.

You should read and study the ancient philosophers not because they must be right, but because they've covered a lot of ground already, and you can stand on their shoulders in order to see further.

No doubt there is a lot of chaff among what is called philosophy, but to deny that anyone can do without it is absurd. Everybody who is capable of thinking at all has an opinion on even the most infuriatingly intractable philosophical issues like free will for example, or, as you mentioned, how do we know what we know, and what is moral and what is not. Philosophy is necessary and unavoidable. Those who deny that are not exempt. They just have a tendency to be inchoate.

[AnInconvenientScotsman]

I've just started a Philosophy course at Glasgow uni and to be honest it sounds like a load of pish.

"Is the chair really there?" "Are you actually a slug's dream?"

WHAT THE FUCK?