Philosphy is a waste of time

[Torie]

After a diligent search, I finally found the article that I was looking for to validate my suspicions and prejudices. Eureka!

I have always hated philosophy, first because my IQ is too low to understand it, and second because its practical application to anything to do with my now quite extended life, either in living "the good life," (see I can toss terms around too), or making a living, or a positive difference, or in love, I found found to be basically the null set. Philistines of the world unite!

https://faculty.fiu.edu/~harrisk/Paper%20Assignments/Articles/Philosophy%20is%20a%20waste%20of%20time.htm

[Torie]

Bless you, you most erudite one you.

[Torie]

I would hope that there are other ways to cultivate the love of knowledge and wisdom than via the "discipline" of philosophy. Otherwise, I am effectively the null set.

[Torie]

Yes, self reflection I find is good for myself. I was wondering this morning as I went from the bedroom to the kitchen in our flat in Hudson, NY, how on earth did this all come to pass, that I am here, in this place? I then I scratched Roby's ears, and released him to cavort in the courtyard, and the moment of rumination passed. Let the day begin.

[Torie]

The argument that philosophy is a waste of time is itself a philosophical claim — there’s no escaping philosophy! 

Even if true, it has the virtue of brevity.

[Torie]

Yeah, OK, yeah, and if not philosophy, then it would be a emo concert, but the pretension of it all is the thing that makes it stand out in my mind. Aspirations to great thoughts I guess is inherently pretentious.

[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.

[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?

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.

[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.

[Torie]

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.

[Torie]

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.

[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.