Be A Philosopher!

[spanish_emperor]

So we live in a world where most people dismiss philosophy as a waste of time. I know that in high school philosophy is seen as boring and, not surprising, nerdish.
Philosophy is, according to Wikipedia:

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.

Aren't these matters part of everyday life? Shouldn't we all study philosophy to understand these aspects concerning life rather than ignore them. These are after all the rules of life, if we don't know them then we will make continue to make errors.

I have always been a strong believer that the best teacher is yourself. However, in this life i see many followers, and rarely any leaders. So many people follow others because they are convinced it will bring success, many believe whatever someone says because they are convinced it is true too easily. But this are all the result of people being incapable of asking questions. Please tell me how many people at school or university listen to their professor or teacher state down a fact and immediately ask themselves Why? Where? Who? How? When? What? Especially the first one.
Most people just copy it down so they won't forget, which is also an educational problem that rewards the students who remember words and sentences, not those who try to seek new knowledge. I have rarely found good professors who teach using the Socratic method.

Doesn't most people just listen and accept whatever is heard? I ask myself like a good philosopher; why? I believe the reason being people are impatient beings who desire to return to pleasurable activities as fast as possible. However, any good philosopher knows that without asking questions you are never going to find the answer, and without the answer you will continue to repeat the same mistakes until you learn to be patient and invest a few minutes of your time to question and try to find an answer through thought and questioning rather than the laborious method of trial and error.

Shouldn't schools be run to let the students learn who to educate themselves. Afterall, give a nomad fish and he will survive for one day, teach the nomad to fish and he will survive for the rest of his life (i seriously don't remember the quote lol). Or have education programs realised this and fear that they will loose their monopoly on students who would suddenly realise they don't have to go to school to gain knowledge, therefore loosing profits?

Its really late here so excuse my english vocabulary, style and grammer since i am tired and english is my second language.

We all know how important knowledge is. Yet most of the time we are only forced to learn at school (notice the word forced meaning students hate it because it is not rewarded, your simply punished if you don't do it) which leaves the majority of the students hating it, thus never gaining knowledge. No, ignorance is not bliss, knowledge is bliss.
But it would be much better if the real teachers were the parents. the young child spends most of his time at home and his idols are his parents so it would be much more effective than being forced to learn by someone you rarely talk to or share any interests (teachers). but parents like to wash their hands and leave everything to the teachers, then they wonder why their child grew up so badly.

It is at this age that a child must be taught how to be his own teacher, and reward him every time he questions something, not punish him. We are afterall normally curious and like to ask our parents many questions which may seem obvious to us but natural to them who are just learning. But once again parents feel it is annoying to have to answer every question and simply ignore the child or punish them verbally. Then they ask themselves why they aren't interested in learning and it never enters their brain that it might be because they were discouraged from doing so when they were young.

Sorry about the wall of words, i am not thinking straight. But to sum it all up: All humans should try to be philosophers because only by asking yourself questions can you find the truth. Others will simply lie to you or not bother teaching you.

And asking questions should be encouraged at school and at home. The Socratic method is the most important educational tool there is.

Otherwise people will continue to be manipulated for other peoples own purpose. The truth will set you free.

Most "who" are supposed to be "how" - i am sleepy

[Groenepuntmuts]

Heh, I could hardly agree more. I'm not in university yet, still in school. I've had my fair share of problems the last few years, and am currently repeating the senior year, but luckily not all teachers are that bad. some actually understand.

But you know: not everyone's interest is in "the truth." and most of the time, it doesn't make them bad people. as for the philosophers: from what I'm seeing, more and more people ask "why?" these days. a few years ago, only six students enrolled in philosophy class, this year (09/10) over sixty did. (It isn't mandatory where I live, so it says something when people take the class willingly)

At any rate: Good opening post.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Philosophy is the art of building castles in the air, living in them, and collapsing on the floor every time.

I sincerely thought this thread was satirical at first. srsly?

[bushbush]

hey i gotta feed my kids.

[Eers]

Philosophy is the art of building castles in the air, living in them, and collapsing on the floor every time.

I sincerely thought this thread was satirical at first. srsly?

Philosophy is more like wondering if you could build a castle in the air.

[Amorphos]

I certainly agree, perhaps for schools something more along the lines of ‘life philosophy’ would be more useful and bring people to an understanding of why philosophy is important and indeed one of the fundamentals. So many areas concerning life that I feel go amiss at schools, things my kids ask about daily ~ although its mainly gangsta stuff doh.

Hmm can we trust schools not to abuse it, probably not, but just getting people thinking and asking questions is good Imho.

Philosophy is the art of building castles in the air, living in them, and collapsing on the floor every time.

Philosophy is more like wondering if you could build a castle in the air.

Eh, how about; is abortion right, is war, murder, theft, right, …what do you want from life, how do you treat other people, what is your philosophical approach to relationships etc etc. almost every area of understanding is philosophy ~ the ‘love of sophos’ [wisdom], which itself is a worthy aspiration.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Eh, how about; is abortion right, is war, murder, theft, right, …what do you want from life, how do you treat other people, what is your philosophical approach to relationships etc etc. almost every area of understanding is philosophy ~ the ‘love of sophos’ [wisdom], which itself is a worthy aspiration.

The largest problem with philosophy is not philosophy itself but the types that make it. It is literally the halmark of pedantry and highly abstracted dreaming when it is not focused in complete irrelevance. You can add sociology and anthropology to that definition, they are modern man's blindfolded way of justifying his own ego by categorizing others.

[Bovril]

The OP's 'queen of the sciences'/'foundational discourse' approach is desperately dated. I recommend he read more philosphy.

[Strelok]

EDIT: What I said months ago back here was stupid.

[I Heart Romans]

Think of the human brain, think of the incredible levels of thought it is capable off, think of how ridiculously advanced our brains are compared to any other being we know to be in existence, the best of the rest is no were near as good as a Human is at merely thinking.

And yet here we are, with people claiming that the incredibly complex discussions on knowledge, existence and language are redundant. Not only is this argument flawed but it betrays the very fact that this advanced level of discussion is something which should be desired in many fields.

Think of the brain as a super car, a Lamborghini Murciélago if you will. Now imagine you see a balding man driving this Lamborghini Murciélago around inner London at 20mph. How sad is that? The car was designed to go over 150mph! And yet here it is, barely reaching 30mph! The car is begging, pleading to go faster!
Now our brains are capable of going 200mph, of discussing these incredibly complex ideas, and yet people would rather see this beautiful piece of engineering go at 20mph? It's beyond me!

The basic philosophical ideas that we adopt are beneficial. Beyond that, I share agreements with philosophy haters.

If I take this argument at its face value, would you be inclined to agree that the basic philosophical ideas that are beneficial are those that aid us in everyday life and are easily understood? As opposed to those that are not useful in everyday life, and are not easily understood?

[Strelok]

If I take this argument at its face value, would you be inclined to agree that the basic philosophical ideas that are beneficial are those that aid us in everyday life and are easily understood? As opposed to those that are not useful in everyday life, and are not easily understood?

The complexity of the philosophy does not necessarily have to impact it's usefulness or adoption rate, but, yes, mostly. Ones that help our lives in a positive away in various aspects, even if they are minor and we don't notice the effect that practicing such a philosophy has. For example, the moral philosophy that killing is "bad" serves us well when we a form a community + government.

But, for example, asking what defines reality / what is truly reality, are not so useful.

[I Heart Romans]

But, for example, asking what defines reality / what is truly reality, are not so useful.

By your own definition, you would have to reject the studies of History and many aspects of Science, not to mention a multitude of other studies - because these are not useful, my knowledge of the Battle of Hastings is not useful to me today.

Unless you would be willing to admit something that is not useful is still valuable, knowledge for knowledges sake, for instance?

[Mystic Pete]

Philosophy is one of the most important things you can study, its where you learn things like logic and rationality. Obviously we shouldn't all rush and get degrees in it 'cos what the hell is anyone meant to do with that but everyone should study it at least for a little bit. After all, surely you're not going to argue that the ability to think clearly is a bad thing?

Admittedly a lot of philosophy is completely ridiculous to most people (with questions such as is a chair really a chair) but problems such as what is right/wrong should concern us all.

[Strelok]

By your own definition, you would have to reject the studies of History and many aspects of Science, not to mention a multitude of other studies - because these are not useful, my knowledge of the Battle of Hastings is not useful to me today.

Unless you would be willing to admit something that is not useful is still valuable, knowledge for knowledges sake, for instance?

By my standard? What is my standard?

Why do I have to reject these? How does the small portion of the criteria I presented account for this claim? I have a certain standard for useful and not useful and I haven't mentioned them all. So exactly, how do you make your claim based on the little amount I have said? For example: many aspects of Science? Like what, and how?

Admittedly a lot of philosophy is completely ridiculous to most people (with questions such as is a chair really a chair) but problems such as what is right/wrong should concern us all.

This is an example of mostly what I meant to say.

[Cornelius Plautus]

Too much philosophy is dangerous: when one over-thinks basic things in life, they can lose their sense of morality, become unable to take joy in the simple pleasures of life; however, I do agree with you in that people are ought to think a bit more. It seems -especially among students- that nowadays thinking has taken a back seat to animalistic mob tendencies and a complete refusal of any sort of information contrary to popular beliefs. Children -to me, at least- seem to be brought up most times to take in and not question the ideas forced on them by religion or media, without asking why. I don't think we all need to be on Locke's level for practicality's sake, but simple Socratic methods can really help advance the cause of 'freedom'. 'peace', 'democracy', and all those other lovely Western Ideals that politicians often mention to little or no effect.

[spanish_emperor]

The OP's 'queen of the sciences'/'foundational discourse' approach is desperately dated. I recommend he read more philosphy.

You know, if you would be so kind to refrain from making assumptions and actually contribute to the discussion then maybe people wouldn't simply ignore you.

And to other people: we don't need degrees in philosophy to understand the basics which should in my opinion be compulsory. studying philosophy by yourself or simply in college is enough.

[Mystic Pete]

And to other people: we don't need degrees in philosophy to understand the basics which should in my opinion be compulsory. studying philosophy by yourself or simply in college is enough.

Exactly, In Scotland you can take a course in philosophy in secondary school. It's more than enough to get people thinking more about things but isn't going to lead you into all sorts of ridiculous philosophical problems.

[Hmmm]

Eh, how about; is abortion right, is war, murder, theft, right, …what do you want from life, how do you treat other people, what is your philosophical approach to relationships etc etc. almost every area of understanding is philosophy ~ the ‘love of sophos’ [wisdom], which itself is a worthy aspiration.

Whilst ethics certainly is part of philosophy, I'm suprised you didn't go with epistemological philosophy or philosophy of science; the former is what established inductive and deductive logic (amongst other things, obviously) and the latter is what basically determines what a scientific study is. Both are of major importance for science.

As for usefulness, most basic philosophical categories certainly qualify; besides ethics, epistemology and philosophy of science, semantics and logic come to mind. At best, one can claim that ontology and metaphysical philosophy is kind of useless, but that by no means makes philosophy a "useless" practise.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Too much philosophy is dangerous: when one over-thinks basic things in life, they can lose their sense of morality, become unable to take joy in the simple pleasures of life; however, I do agree with you in that people are ought to think a bit more. It seems -especially among students- that nowadays thinking has taken a back seat to animalistic mob tendencies and a complete refusal of any sort of information contrary to popular beliefs. Children -to me, at least- seem to be brought up most times to take in and not question the ideas forced on them by religion or media, without asking why. I don't think we all need to be on Locke's level for practicality's sake, but simple Socratic methods can really help advance the cause of 'freedom'. 'peace', 'democracy', and all those other lovely Western Ideals that politicians often mention to little or no effect.

Too bad that the minds which employ them are pedantic and cloistered beyond relief. The dilemma of modernity is the result of the loss of practical sense and upbringing among our philosophers coupled with the hyper-intelectualization and abstraction of scholarly means. Nowadays, one cannot be like Huygens, or Newton, or Goethe, in the sense that great intellect is combined with unmatched life experience and rigid morality: one is either a detached pedant incapable of tying shoelaces, or one is an animal that spends his diminutive leisure time in barbaric or ennui pursuits, like consumption, television and sex.

[vecordia]

spanish_emperor

Very well said