Gripes about philosophy or philosophocology: what's your beef?

[Bcat]

Philosophy is important because it teaches people how to think in colour and stops all you robots from taking over. :-)

I dunno if it's completely useless. Hard to have arguments against the existence of god without at least engaging in some philosophy, or when deconstructing theistic arguments. And there are studies which show that cognitive behavioral therapy, which has its roots in the philosophy of Stoicism, is very effective.

Many people (including some on here) utilize fallacies when arguing a point. Fallacies were initially methodized by Aristotle (and then were added to later on).

[Mark]

Philosophy is important because it teaches people how to think in colour and stops all you robots from taking over. :-)

Philosophy will go on being assimilated until there are no new questions to explore for which disciplines have yet to be spawned.

But I like what @Little Lunch said.  In a way, by the time philosophy exposes enough pieces of the puzzle it makes it does make it possible for folks working with more familiar ('robotic') processes to put them together.

[Szuchow]

Philosophy is dangerous:

[skyking]

I Kant speak on the subject because I haven't studied it in any depth. I do know that there are acres and miles and pages and volumes of it, and just like everything else, there are kernels and nuggets of truth hidden in there.
I prefer to wait outside that jungle and let others bring those kernels out.

[no one]

This might be shaky ground, depending on what's at stake.

[SYZ]

I dunno if it's completely useless. Hard to have arguments against the existence of god without at least engaging in some philosophy, or when deconstructing theistic arguments. And there are studies which show that cognitive behavioral therapy, which has its roots in the philosophy of Stoicism, is very effective.

In my opinion, in the 21st century, philosophy is a pointless mode of reasoning, study, contemplation or debate. It's an
area of erudition that's long outdated, and only perpetualised by casual pseudo-intellectuals or unaccountable academics
living on the public purse.

Australia currently has 118 notable philosophers listed in Wikipedia, and, not unsurprisingly, most of them are employed
at universities of similar academic institutions.  I'm inclined to ask then;  "What do they actually do—in real terms—for
the betterment of society?"

Can someone tell me, in simple terms, what the 10 most profound philosophical pronouncements have been this century?

[Mark]

Can someone tell me, in simple terms, what the 10 most profound philosophical pronouncements have been this century?

Nope.  Neither can I tell you what was philosophy's ten best contributions to medicine, literature or engineering.  The same goes for art criticism, nothing they do will pay off in unrelated fields.  But with philosophy there is always the chance that some provisional understanding will open a new field where the methods of science can do what they do.

But there seems to be the persistent expectation that the history of philosophic thought should somehow be directly useful.  I'm pretty sure you will remain skeptical of philosophy, as will I .. albeit to a far lesser degree.

[kittycate198]

Philosophy is important because it teaches people how to think in colour and stops all you robots from taking over. :-)

The problem is that not everyone has a larger world view. It is 'Coloured' in the perspective of their intelligence and experience. So you can teach your Marys', in their black and white room, about colour and then get them to experience it. Sadly, not all of them are going to grasp the complex spectrum. Or worse, say the 'Black to white spectrum is more valuable.

[Bucky Ball]

Philosophocology
Is that the study of thinking about letting some philosophocologist stick something in your bum ?

Not exactly.

Taking pictures of your philosophy ?

[adey67]

I can see why its useful  in many circumstances. I personally don't like it but that's because I'm stupid and don't understand it because it can be sooo complicated, (I'm a simple creature). To me it appears as over fussy arguing of semantics and very pretentious but that's just a personal opinion and probably wrong........ Please don't kill me. 

[brewerb]

I don't have an issue with philosophy itself. It's more the people who champion it ad nauseam. They are often pretentious and act superior. 

While useful, it's not the end all be all that some would like it to be.

Edit: Ever notice how philosophy discussions devolve into arguments?

[SYZ]

I can see why its useful  in many circumstances. I personally don't like it but that's because I'm stupid and don't understand it because it can be sooo complicated, (I'm a simple creature). To me it appears as over fussy arguing of semantics and very pretentious but that's just a personal opinion and probably wrong........ Please don't kill me. 

No mate... you're not stupid, and I agree with your argument.  Philosophy only appears  complex because
it's one of those esoteric fields crafted to create the illusion of advanced intellectualism by people largely
living in the ivory towers of academia.

How many of these self-appointed "philosophers" have developed a new vaccine, built a satellite or an electric car,
developed any robotics, cured a major disease, discovered ancient human fossils, sequenced a genome, imaged
a black hole or found a new planet?   —None.

And your use of the terms "pretentious" and "semantics" are more than apt for this arcane, manufactured "profession".

It's pretentious in order to keep the plebs in their place, and encourage the 'oohs' and 'aahs' from fellow philosophers.
It relies majorly on semantics in order to fabricate an opaque, bullshit-laden theory that can't be easily demolished.

[GenesisNemesis]

I don't have an issue with philosophy itself. It's more the people who champion it ad nauseam. They are often pretentious and act superior. 

While useful, it's not the end all be all that some would like it to be.

Edit: Ever notice how philosophy discussions devolve into arguments?

People do the exact same thing with science though.

But I will agree science obviously has much more going for it.

[adey67]

Double post sorry.

[adey67]

I can see why its useful  in many circumstances. I personally don't like it but that's because I'm stupid and don't understand it because it can be sooo complicated, (I'm a simple creature). To me it appears as over fussy arguing of semantics and very pretentious but that's just a personal opinion and probably wrong........ Please don't kill me. 

No mate... you're not stupid, and I agree with your argument.  Philosophy only appears  complex because
it's one of those esoteric fields crafted to create the illusion of advanced intellectualism by people largely
living in the ivory towers of academia.

How many of these self-appointed "philosophers" have developed a new vaccine, built a satellite or an electric car,
developed any robotics, cured a major disease, discovered ancient human fossils, sequenced a genome, imaged
a black hole or found a new planet?   —None.

And your use of the terms "pretentious" and "semantics" are more than apt for this arcane, manufactured "profession".

It's pretentious in order to keep the plebs in their place, and encourage the 'oohs' and 'aahs' from fellow philosophers.
It relies majorly on semantics in order to fabricate an opaque, bullshit-laden theory that can't be easily demolished.

You're very sweet but  I'm not the sharpest tool in the box and I know that, I guess I could be described as an idiot savant and I like to think I have a fair and decent heart.

[brewerb]

I don't have an issue with philosophy itself. It's more the people who champion it ad nauseam. They are often pretentious and act superior. 

While useful, it's not the end all be all that some would like it to be.

Edit: Ever notice how philosophy discussions devolve into arguments?

People do the exact same thing with science though.

But I will agree science obviously has much more going for it.

It's philosophy, science or nothing?

[mordant]

I took a Philosophy course in college.  It’s not a subject I would be interested in immersing myself in, but I do think it encourages analytical thinking and the use of logic and so therefore, has merit.

I've come to the conclusion that philosophy teaches us the LIMITS of logic, and therein lies its merit.

The way one writer (forget who) put it, is philosophy shows us that word meanings break down around the margins. The more closely you examine existential questions, the more uncertain you become about them. Philosophers are like lawyers in the sense that a good one can make you doubt what appears at first glance an open-and-shut case.

Philosophy is not a path to certitude.

The most useful insight of philosophy 101 is that the concept of self is an illusion. Beyond that, meh, it's an interesting diversion at times but doesn't really enlighten. Even that "me" is illusory is not really actionable. We're still mostly obliged to act AS IF it were real.

The most value I see is the study and classification of logical fallacies. The best we can do is to try to root out bias and preconception. Even then, life is guesswork, and we tend to guess in the direction of our biases.

[Mark]

The most useful insight of philosophy 101 is that the concept of self is an illusion. Beyond that, meh, it's an interesting diversion at times but doesn't really enlighten. Even that "me" is illusory is not really actionable. We're still mostly obliged to act AS IF it were real.

I'd prefer to say that the idea that one's self is a fixed and settled thing is simply mistaken.  But that it is to our selves that experiences happen, is unavoidable.  That doesn't say what it is or how it functions, but we all experience things and when asked who it is that has those experiences will answer "my self".  It is, as you say, what we are obliged to do.