Philosphy is a waste of time
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:08:57 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Philosphy is a waste of time
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Philosphy is a waste of time  (Read 2074 times)
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: March 08, 2023, 09:04:46 PM »
« edited: March 08, 2023, 09:12:39 PM by Torie »

What is Philosophy?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vT-WrqjWdI

Yes, I rest my case. Like I said. A waste of time Agnes. Deal with it. If you really want clarity, legal reasoning and constructs actually get you from A to B. What does it mean that I am busy you ask? It means that I would rather be doing something other than interacting with you at the moment. You know, like chewing my finger nails. Or noticing that BRTD had put up yet another spam thread. What does spam mean Agnes? Your turn. Any more questions?

Agnes had a nice long, very long (interminable really, something the New Yorker article has trademarked)  write up in the New Yorker about living with her former student husband and ex husband all happily under one roof, plus assorted issue. Yes, I knw, what does it mean to be happy. Anyway, yeah, she also has a lot to say about love. Not much of that interested me either to be honest.  But inasmuch as she seems to get out a lot, radio shows like the night owl where she arms wrestles with someone more traditional, almost a life of the party type perhaps, so I thought I would take a spin at listening to her. And yes, the windows at the University of Chicago really do look that way. John D. Rockefeller insisted upon it.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/03/13/agnes-callard-profile-marriage-philosophy

But hey, for a philosophy prof, she does indeed actually seem somewhat human, in fact a rather warm human being (one gets that in a more advanced course, so you will have to wait), as opposed to being the spooks with which I had to cope. That I guess is why people want to live with her. Makes sense. The dots connect now.
Logged
Cassius
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,591


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: March 10, 2023, 07:22:26 AM »
« Edited: March 10, 2023, 07:25:39 AM by Cassius »

The funny thing about that article is it’s basically just pushing out clouds and clouds of ink to find a sophisticated moral justification for what male academics have been doing since time immemorial without needing one; chucking their spouse and shacking up with a younger student.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: March 10, 2023, 08:35:18 AM »

What is Philosophy?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vT-WrqjWdI

Yes, I rest my case. Like I said. A waste of time Agnes. Deal with it. If you really want clarity, legal reasoning and constructs actually get you from A to B. What does it mean that I am busy you ask? It means that I would rather be doing something other than interacting with you at the moment. You know, like chewing my finger nails. Or noticing that BRTD had put up yet another spam thread. What does spam mean Agnes? Your turn. Any more questions?

Wait... are you seriously arguing that clarity and univocity of language is a characteristic feature of legal reasoning? For real?? My dude, I'm all for taking the speck off the philosopher's eyes but maybe you should pay attention to the beam in the lawyer's eye as well. Lawyers are the biggest and most adept players of language games of all.

Anyway, the point of the video here seems to be that philosophers try to think systematically about the meaning of ordinary language. I would agree with that. The point is not to say "you're using language wrong" which is the real problem with a lot of skeptical philosophical perspectives. Rather, it's trying to describe the meaning that's communicated and how a simple sentence can carry a lot of meaning. You're kind of making that point right here with the "I'm busy" example - there's actually a lot you're not explicitly saying but that your interlocutor will grasp implicitly. All the philosopher is doing is trying to make that explicit. Again that's a very different project from trying to destroy all meaning, which is my problem with a lot of modern philosophers.

As for this person's personal life, it certainly seems sussy but I have no interest in looking up the details. I am indeed busy in that regard.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: March 10, 2023, 08:57:56 AM »

What is Philosophy?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vT-WrqjWdI

Yes, I rest my case. Like I said. A waste of time Agnes. Deal with it. If you really want clarity, legal reasoning and constructs actually get you from A to B. What does it mean that I am busy you ask? It means that I would rather be doing something other than interacting with you at the moment. You know, like chewing my finger nails. Or noticing that BRTD had put up yet another spam thread. What does spam mean Agnes? Your turn. Any more questions?

Wait... are you seriously arguing that clarity and univocity of language is a characteristic feature of legal reasoning? For real?? My dude, I'm all for taking the speck off the philosopher's eyes but maybe you should pay attention to the beam in the lawyer's eye as well. Lawyers are the biggest and most adept players of language games of all.

Anyway, the point of the video here seems to be that philosophers try to think systematically about the meaning of ordinary language. I would agree with that. The point is not to say "you're using language wrong" which is the real problem with a lot of skeptical philosophical perspectives. Rather, it's trying to describe the meaning that's communicated and how a simple sentence can carry a lot of meaning. You're kind of making that point right here with the "I'm busy" example - there's actually a lot you're not explicitly saying but that your interlocutor will grasp implicitly. All the philosopher is doing is trying to make that explicit. Again that's a very different project from trying to destroy all meaning, which is my problem with a lot of modern philosophers.

As for this person's personal life, it certainly seems sussy but I have no interest in looking up the details. I am indeed busy in that regard.

Well lawyers understand a word can have different meanings in different contexts, and learn to cope with that, and if that gets too problematical, to create words or art, or develop case law with often more developed definitions from the case facts or hypotheticals in the reasoning, sort of what Agnes was yammering about as philosophy, but it is sort of like brushing your teeth, it is just an ordinary activity that does not need someone who seems to be getting paid by the word but isn't, to torture the minds of students by making it all seem impenetrable but important. Successfully understanding and coping with ambiguity is a form of the risk management of life.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: March 10, 2023, 09:09:41 AM »

Well lawyers understand a word can have different meanings in different contexts, and learn to cope with that, and if that gets too problematical, to create words or art, or develop case law with often more developed definitions from the case facts or hypotheticals in the reasoning, sort of what Agnes was yammering about as philosophy, but it is sort of like brushing your teeth, it is just an ordinary activity that does not need someone who seems to be getting paid by the word but isn't, to torture the minds of students by making it all seem impenetrable but important. Successfully understanding and coping with ambiguity is a form of the risk management of life.

...so you don't think lawyers often deliberately play on the different meanings of words in order to obfuscate a given issue rather than clarify it? If you're seriously denying this I. Honestly don't know how to respond. That's like, the one thing everyone knows about lawyers.

And I think consciously thinking about how you use words can be a deeply helpful activity and allow you to better understand yourself and others. Sure, a lot of our communication will work just fine on instincts, but you never know when you'll get into problems or arguments that seem intractable unless you seriously think about what the words actually mean. When that happens, philosophy does come in handy. That's in addition to the other point I mentioned about giving us reasons to care about our life and others', something which many people can be seen to clearly lack.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: March 10, 2023, 09:40:29 AM »
« Edited: March 10, 2023, 09:47:17 AM by Torie »

Well lawyers understand a word can have different meanings in different contexts, and learn to cope with that, and if that gets too problematical, to create words or art, or develop case law with often more developed definitions from the case facts or hypotheticals in the reasoning, sort of what Agnes was yammering about as philosophy, but it is sort of like brushing your teeth, it is just an ordinary activity that does not need someone who seems to be getting paid by the word but isn't, to torture the minds of students by making it all seem impenetrable but important. Successfully understanding and coping with ambiguity is a form of the risk management of life.

...so you don't think lawyers often deliberately play on the different meanings of words in order to obfuscate a given issue rather than clarify it? If you're seriously denying this I. Honestly don't know how to respond. That's like, the one thing everyone knows about lawyers.

And I think consciously thinking about how you use words can be a deeply helpful activity and allow you to better understand yourself and others. Sure, a lot of our communication will work just fine on instincts, but you never know when you'll get into problems or arguments that seem intractable unless you seriously think about what the words actually mean. When that happens, philosophy does come in handy. That's in addition to the other point I mentioned about giving us reasons to care about our life and others', something which many people can be seen to clearly lack.

Lawyers clarify or obfuscate depending on what serves their client's interests, but typically one of the two contending lawyers would be on the clarifying side. In contract negotiations, typically both lawyers would want to be on the clarifying side, unless the idea is to pull a fast one on the other side.

The best lawyers have the best skills in espying ambiguity (issue spotting), and seeing the dissimilarities in apparent similarities, and visa versa. Isn't that grand?

I like to think I am pretty good at that, or at least was, before my mind when to hell.

I agree with the rest of what you said of course.

Cheers.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: March 10, 2023, 09:52:00 AM »

Well lawyers understand a word can have different meanings in different contexts, and learn to cope with that, and if that gets too problematical, to create words or art, or develop case law with often more developed definitions from the case facts or hypotheticals in the reasoning, sort of what Agnes was yammering about as philosophy, but it is sort of like brushing your teeth, it is just an ordinary activity that does not need someone who seems to be getting paid by the word but isn't, to torture the minds of students by making it all seem impenetrable but important. Successfully understanding and coping with ambiguity is a form of the risk management of life.

...so you don't think lawyers often deliberately play on the different meanings of words in order to obfuscate a given issue rather than clarify it? If you're seriously denying this I. Honestly don't know how to respond. That's like, the one thing everyone knows about lawyers.

And I think consciously thinking about how you use words can be a deeply helpful activity and allow you to better understand yourself and others. Sure, a lot of our communication will work just fine on instincts, but you never know when you'll get into problems or arguments that seem intractable unless you seriously think about what the words actually mean. When that happens, philosophy does come in handy. That's in addition to the other point I mentioned about giving us reasons to care about our life and others', something which many people can be seen to clearly lack.

Lawyers clarify or obfuscate depending on what serves their client's interests, but typically one of the two contending lawyers would be on the clarifying side. In contract negotiations, typically both lawyers would want to be on the clarifying side, unless the idea is to pull a fast one on the other side.

The best lawyers have the best skills in espying ambiguity (issue spotting), and seeing the dissimilarities in apparent similarities, and visa versa. Isn't that grand?

I like to think I am pretty good at that, or at least was, before my mind when to hell.

Cheers.

That's fair enough, but the bottom line here is that lawyers clearly do not seek truth - they seek their client's interest, as you say, and that interest is sometimes served by truth, sometimes not, but in either case truth is at best a secondary goal. What matters is making the most compelling case for your client, and while you're right that being able to spot obfuscation in the other party is a helpful skill in that respect, an equally helpful skill is to learn to obfuscate and get away with it. And since, in most legal cases, neither side's case is perfectly served by the truth (truth is typically inconvenient to everyone), usually both sides are doing some amount of obfuscation.
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: March 10, 2023, 12:54:20 PM »

Torie, I am genuinely unsure why you spend so much time on the Religion & Philosophy board when you are actively uninterested in both religion and philosophy.
Logged
°Leprechaun
tmcusa2
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,117
Uruguay


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: March 10, 2023, 01:36:52 PM »

Torie, I am genuinely unsure why you spend so much time on the Religion & Philosophy board when you are actively uninterested in both religion and philosophy.
That's a good question. It will be interesting to see if and how he responds.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: March 10, 2023, 04:02:40 PM »

Torie, I am genuinely unsure why you spend so much time on the Religion & Philosophy board when you are actively uninterested in both religion and philosophy.


I never said I was not interested in either topic, must less "actively" uninterested. I certainly am interested. Something can be at once interesting and a waste of time. I don't think religion however is a waste of time. I don't put philosophy and religion in the same box in my mind, although the two are certainly related. It most certainly is worth one's time to learn about. It moves hearts and minds.

I hope that helps.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: March 10, 2023, 04:52:25 PM »

Torie, in law school you would have been taught to clarify and/or obfuscate everyday language in much the same way that this Callard person teaches her students to. What you're making here is essentially just a distinction between the immediate social and economic usefulness of the two fields of inquiry. I think there's a lot less of any difference deeper than that than you seem to think.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: March 10, 2023, 05:04:19 PM »
« Edited: March 10, 2023, 07:50:21 PM by muon2 »

FWIW My wife majored in philosophy and parlayed the skills and knowledge she learned into a successful and award-winning career in technical writing. Tech writing is a field that prizes accurate and clear communication. To the extent that her success was in part derived from the study of philosophy suggests that philosophy was not a waste of time.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: March 10, 2023, 05:19:22 PM »

OK, if the two fields are so similar, why do I so love the one, and find the other like a tooth extraction without anesthetic?

I grant they do have much in common given the emphasis on categorization and precision.
I guess one thing might be that the law is not on the hunt for ultimate truths. And I guess I am very suspicious of those. Maybe that makes me moral relativist slime or something. If so, I love the pond scum habitat.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: March 10, 2023, 06:05:38 PM »
« Edited: March 11, 2023, 08:25:42 AM by Torie »

Law and Philosophy, Philosophy and Law

https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/facpub/97/

I just thought I would throw this on the pile. What do others think I wondered. And thus the google, which produced this off the top that seemed to have some promise perhaps. Or not. I have not read it.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: March 11, 2023, 12:13:22 AM »

I had a Philosophy professor in college who said that lawyers know more about logical reasoning than most people, which makes them excellent at sophistry.
Logged
Kleine Scheiße
PeteHam
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,770
United States


Political Matrix
E: -9.16, S: -1.74

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: March 12, 2023, 11:42:54 AM »

That's just what they want you to think!
Logged
Benjamin Frank
Frank
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,069


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: April 30, 2023, 04:35:43 PM »

Episode from the Australian Broadcasting Company Program "The Philosopher's Zone"
The anti-philosophers

One of the curious things about the history of philosophy is that it periodically throws up thinkers who throw into question the whole business of… doing philosophy. Some are avowed anti-philosophers, e.g. Diogenes and Nietzsche. Some have the mantle of anti-philosophy thrust upon them, e.g. Jacques Derrida, the genial Frenchman whose engagement with canonical thinkers is close and respectful, and yet whose work has been denounced as a kind of heretical nihilism. How should we situate these paradoxical figures? Is it possible to be a philosopher if you're arguing that philosophy is an impossible project?

https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/the-anti-philosophers/102180710
28 minute program.

I haven't listened to it yet. I went to their website to post another topic here.

Logged
°Leprechaun
tmcusa2
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,117
Uruguay


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: April 30, 2023, 04:43:28 PM »
« Edited: April 30, 2023, 04:51:18 PM by °°°°uu »

We could also ponder similar questions Huh

Are political debates a waste of time?

Is religion a waste of time?

Is science a waste of time?

Is atlas a waste of time?

Is grammar a waste of time?

Is debating sports a waste of time?

Is history a waste of time?

Is complaining a waste of time?

Is learning to speak Klingon a waste of time?

Not to mention things that are a waste of space or money.



Logged
Benjamin Frank
Frank
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,069


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: April 30, 2023, 04:56:00 PM »

We could also ponder similar questions Huh

Are political debates a waste of time?

Is religion a waste of time?

Is science a waste of time?

Is atlas a waste of time?

Is grammar a waste of time?

Is debating sports a waste of time?

Is history a waste of time?

Is complaining a waste of time?

Is learning to speak Klingon a waste of time?

Not to mention things that are a waste of space or money.





Is life a waste of time?

For answers to all these questions and more, consult BoJack Horseman.
Logged
satsuma
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 300
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: May 06, 2023, 03:14:38 PM »

"Philosophizing" is inevitable. That's my main defense of it. I'm referring to a person's ability to "find meaning" in life, and to engage in dialogue and thought about every subfield of philosophy. Aesthetics, ethics, epistemology, etc. You do all those things whether you know it or not, so reading academic-level sources about the topics you're interested in might help, with being more precise and engaging with prior work on those topics, which has almost certainly been written.

Academic philosophy is not really equivalent to "philosophizing." It's an academic field with a language that is hard for laymen to grasp, although it occasionally produces things that get laymen interested. We have limited time and IQ points, so personally I always liked to dabble in things rather than delve until I'm an expert.

Even so, life is long enough that we don't have to limit ourselves to things that are guaranteed to be non-wasted time... nothing can truly guarantee us that. If your intellectual curiosity leads you in a particular direction, why not follow it? You can only learn what's under that rock by looking.
Logged
satsuma
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 300
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: May 06, 2023, 03:14:59 PM »


On another note, since the article sings the praises of "hard sciences", we should be aware that there is in fact a similar tendency at work in certain highly theoretical fields of scientific academia. For example, this video makes a pretty compelling case that most of modern particle physics is dominated by highly unscientific speculation that has tried (and repeatedly, embarrassingly failed) to solve "problems" with the Standard Model that aren't actual problems. The video is well worth a watch (the author is herself a fairly respected theoretical physicist, to be clear, so her critiques come from a place of intimate knowledge):




The great irony here is that it seems like what particle physicists are doing is basically philosophy. They reject the standard model, not because it makes incorrect predictions, but because it's not "elegant" enough - in other words, it's not as meaningful as we'd like it to be. It makes a bunch of weird esoteric claims and these claims seem to work perfectly at predicting anything we can measure, but we as human beings don't really know what to make of them. So, physicists search for hidden meaning that will make the standard model intuitive. But of course that's not something science can tell us: all science can do is make predictions and test them.

I showed this video to a physics grad student and she disagreed with the premise (that these ideas were fanciful and we can say in hindsight they never should have been tried). I guess this is similar to the "waste of time" question actually. Testing particle physics hypotheses is expensive. Falsifying a hypothesis might not be a waste of money, but if you could have simply pruned the idea before it was ever seen as valid enough to test (taking care not to suppress the true new theories), but failed to do so, then sure, the experiment was a waste. So Sabine Hossenfelder seems to have a similar problem with science as one mentioned in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, in which Robert Pirsig became disillusioned as a biochemistry undergrad with the ease of generating arbitrary hypotheses... Arguably he ruined his chance at a hard science career with his philosophy!
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: May 08, 2023, 10:40:59 AM »

Interestingly, depending on the true nature of the Universe/reality, philosophy is either a waste of time or arguably the only thing that matters!
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,072
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: May 13, 2023, 12:16:16 PM »

Interestingly, depending on the true nature of the Universe/reality, philosophy is either a waste of time or arguably the only thing that matters!

Or both at the same time, paradoxical as it might sound.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.057 seconds with 11 queries.