The idea of most people today of what it means to be philosophicallly ‘up to date’ is regressive with respect to the above thinkers. Most are still living in the world envisioned by, at best, certain early 19th century writers and , at worst, much older thinkers. So before we can talk about the need for creative innovations in philosophy we have to make sure we aren’t reinventing the wheel. — Joshs

If it isn’t already, this is a great idea for a thread.

Quick question on this. Who will catch up first - mainstream philosophy, or culture?

Do you think many either praising or doom-mongering about current A.I. realize that the philosophical underpinning of today’s cutting-edge computer technology can be traced back to the era of Leibnitz?
— Joshs

And if philosophy departments were doing that, then that would be attempting to solve modern day problems with older philosophy — Philosophim

Modern day problems are generated by modern day people. And if most modern day people are moving in a world of ideas produced by cutting edge philosophy of 200 years ago, then it is that older philosophy which defines the very meaning of the modern world, and dealing with those problems requires meeting people where they are at in terms of their worldview. That means beginning from the philosophers they already relate to and moving the needle forward at a pace they can manage. It doesnt mean trying to shove down their throats ideas so far removed from their worldview that they are prompted to respond with a mix of incomprehension and hostility. That is a recipe for political disaster, and in fact it is a large part of the reason MAGA emerged.

Liebniz would laugh at a professor wasting time on his old monad theory if he had the understanding of modern day chemistry and physics we do — Philosophim

My point is that all scientific theories are expressions of underlying philosophical worldviews, and the cutting edge of today’s physics and chemistry is based on philosophical presuppositions harking back more than 150-250 years. Heidegger wrote:

…a philosophy is creatively grasped at the earliest 100 years after it arises. We Germans are now precisely beginning to prepare ourselves to grasp Leibniz.

Heidegger wasn’t just referring to the general public but to the scientific community as well. So the best way to move the needle forward on our ‘modern’ chemistry and physics is to introduce those chemists and physicists to the next era of philosophy they are ready to absorb relative to the philosophy they already understand. That means going back to cutting edge philosophy of at least 100 years ago. For instance, Lee Smolen is an example of a physicist who believes his field desperately needs an infusion of newer philosophical ideas. And if you examine which philosophical era he wants the field to transition from (Kantian) and which era he wants it to enter into (post-Hegelian), you’ll see what I mean.

Btw, nothing I’ve read from you suggests to me that your own philosophical perspective has moved significantly beyond Leibnitz. Can you tell me what philosophers you think have gone beyond his thinking and why?

Modern day problems are generated by modern day people. And if most modern day people are moving in a world of ideas produced by cutting edge philosophy of 200 years ago, then it is that older philosophy which defines the very meaning of the modern world, and dealing with those problems requires meeting people where they are at in terms of their worldview. That means beginning from the philosophers they already relate to and moving the needle forward at a pace they can manage. It doesnt mean trying to shove down their throats ideas so far removed from their worldview that they are prompted to respond with a mix of incomprehension and hostility. That is a recipe for political disaster, and in fact it is a large part of the reason MAGA emerged. — Joshs

Joshs I think you have an idea in you're head that you're not quite communicating clearly. And it may be that I lack context to understand what you're trying to say here. Can you attempt to clarify a bit with some examples?

If most people are moving in a world of ideas that are 200 years old, then aren't modern day problems really the problems of 200 years ago? And if the world is 100 years behind modern philosophy, doesn't that mean philosophy is 100 years behind where we expect it to be? That would seem to lend credence to my point. Also where did you get the idea of shoving ideas far removed from people's world view when the point is about philosophy being behind and not addressing the current world view? Finally, where did MAGA come from?

My point is that all scientific theories are expressions of underlying philosophical worldviews, and the cutting edge of today’s physics and chemistry is based on philosophical presuppositions harking back more than 150-250 years. — Joshs

Which philosophical presuppositions, and why are they presuppositions?

So the best way to move the needle forward on our ‘modern’ chemistry and physics is to introduce those chemists and physicists to the next era of philosophy they are ready to absorb relative to the philosophy they already understand. — Joshs

So taking philosophy and applying it to modern day? I'm not sure if you're responding to my point anymore or you're taking this somewhere else. My original point is that philosophy as an academic study is too focused on its past philosophies without regard to coming up with solutions to modern day problems. This was based on my personal experience as a graduate student, so it is a personal anecdote. Do you have examples of philosophy as an academic institute pushing its students to solve cutting edge problems. Is philosophy at the forefront of science, psychology, ethics, and religion, being read daily by masters of the field and laymen who follow them?

If most people are moving in a world of ideas that are 200 years old, then aren't modern day problems really the problems of 200 years ago? And if the world is 100 years behind modern philosophy, doesn't that mean philosophy is 100 years behind where we expect it to be? That would seem to lend credence to my point. Also where did you get the idea of shoving ideas far removed from people's world view when the point is about philosophy being behind and not addressing the current world view? Finally, where did MAGA come from? — Philosophim

When I refer to the ‘cutting edge’ of philosophy of 100 or 200 years ago, I have in mind a tiny handful of thinkers. When you talk about modern day problems, you have in mind the culture as a whole, whereas I’m talking about isolated thinkers. Those thinkers typically become known within the larger academic community ( and from there to the wider community) within a short time and their ideas are written about and taught. But Heidegger’s point stands (“ …a philosophy is creatively grasped at the earliest 100 years after it arises. We Germans are now precisely beginning to prepare ourselves to grasp Leibniz”).

It can take the academic community 100 years or more to effectively understand the radicality of the most important philosophers, even though they have been studying and teaching their work over that period of time. That’s why when you complain about the philosophical community being fixated on the ideas of writers from earlier times I must counter that this is as it should be be as long as the implications of those ideas have yet to be fully appreciated. And buttressing philosophical ideas with the results of the latest sciences is not going to accomplish the ‘modernization’ of philosophy when those very sciences unknowingly ground themselves in philosophical
presuppositions dating back a century or more.

That’s why when you complain about the philosophical community being fixated on the ideas of writers from earlier times I must counter that this is as it should be be as long as the implications of those ideas have yet to be fully appreciated. — Joshs

I said we should be applying those philosophers to modern day problems and trying to solve them. Not that we should be abandoning them. I'm not sure you understood my point.

But Heidegger’s point stands (“ …a philosophy is creatively grasped at the earliest 100 years after it arises. — Joshs

His quote exists, it does not 'stand'. An opinion of the state of philosophy a century ago in no way necessitates that it was true then or today.

And buttressing philosophical ideas with the results of the latest sciences is not going to accomplish the ‘modernization’ of philosophy when those very sciences unknowingly ground themselves in philosophical presuppositions dating back a century or more. — Joshs

You never answered my request to provide what these presuppositions are. "Presupposition" is a pretty bold claim when we have modern day physics, chemistry, and quantum mechanics with cell phone technology. Are you really claiming that the problems of today can only be answered 100 years from now when every other field is answering them much sooner? Wouldn't that indicate that philosophy needs greater emphasis on modern day problem solving and that perhaps many of its current methods are archaic and not very valuable?

I confess, I'm lending more credence to your point than I think it deserves. If you're excusing philosophy not being able to tackle modern day because its literally two generations behind modern day, that's not a counter to my point, that's an affirmation. But continue because maybe I'm missing something.

I confess, I'm lending more credence to your point than I think it deserves. — Philosophim

As you know, philosophy is divided into distinctly different communities, camps, cultures. What arguments you think deserve credence and what arguments don’t is to some extent a function of which of these communities you identify with and which ones you don’t. The question of the relation of philosophy and science has been at the center of the cultural wars which reached their peak in the 1990’s. On one side of the debate stands those writers who believe the sciences never actually separated themselves off from philosophy, and instead represent elaborations of philosophical worldviews.

On the other side are those who believe that the sciences function independently of philosophy, and that the role of philosophy is merely to clarify and organize the discoveries of scientists. The first group ( Heidegger, Deleuze, Wittgenstein, Husserl, etc) has written much about the naively held philosophical presuppositions of particular sciences. The second group believes it is the job of the sciences to lead the way toward new knowledge, and the job of philosophy to try and keep up. You are apparently unfamiliarity with the arguments of the first group, but my guess is you would probably find that they don’t deserve any more credence than mine, which may factor into your negative experience in academic philosophy.

This is a particularly interesting subject.

On the other side are those who believe that the sciences function independently of philosophy, and that the role of philosophy is merely to clarify and organize the discoveries of scientists. The first group ( Heidegger, Deleuze, Wittgenstein, Husserl, etc) has written much about the naively held philosophical presuppositions of particular sciences. The second group believes it is the job of the sciences to lead the way toward new knowledge, and the job of philosophy to try and keep up. You are apparently unfamiliarity with the arguments of the first group, but my guess is you would probably find that they don’t deserve any more credence than mine, which may factor into your negative experience in academic philosophy. — Joshs

True. I also don't agree with the second point. Modern day issues are not only about science, nor does philosophy have to merely follow in sciences footsteps. But philosophy, if it is to remain a relevant and vibrant force in the world, needs to address modern day problems and issues much more than it does now. At least I can now understand your viewpoint. Hopefully you understand mine.

But philosophy, if it is to remain a relevant and vibrant force in the world, needs to address modern day problems and issues much more than it does now. — Philosophim

Beautifully put. That said. You may be surprised just how many modern day problems are self-inflicted. People don't want to listen. They want to do things their way. Higher forms of thinking and logic be damned. Until they get into trouble (or what mostly happens is a less discernible, more insidious misfortune: they simply end up living lives that are a shell of what they could have been, and per the nature of the hedonic treadmill, their mind just adapts to the unfortunate circumstance as if it were the only outcome that could have occurred, living lesser lives and often producing more lives that will likely only follow suit).

In short, you can lead a horse to water but... well, you know the rest. :smile:

Unless it's carefully woven into an action movie with explosions and brutality, even the most pointed and crucial piece of wisdom meticulously crafted for one's situation will likely fall on deaf ears. Not always. But more so than not.

I've found the most effective method to improve the lives of the layperson and get them to make better decisions and ultimately avoid grave misfortune is unfortunately to scare them. The government knows it. That's why they force young drivers to look at gruesome traffic accident photos in traffic school. Why dentists show kids and teens and even adults pictures of rotted mouths. Why they have pretty extreme anti-smoking commercials. Why people warn others they care about (or even any young person around) about the prevalence and lifelong burden of STDs. Etc, etc, ad infinitum.

can you recommend places to access these without a student / educator membership? — Jeremy Murray

Usually, you can find pdfs of good papers. I've got a couple of Stocks (and many others). Shoot me your email and I'll send through whatever I have on the topic.

And thank you for questioning in high school. I taught high school math for five years before the attempt to puberty block and transition kids. I never bought the, "We have to let them do this or they'll kill themselves" line, and after doing research on the subject, it truly is tragic. I never would have gone along with it either. Adults can do what they want, but I will never stand by and let a kid be harmed. — Philosophim

Thanks! And sorry for the delayed response, I continue to battle the black dog.

Did you leave teaching due to the turning tides? I'm not sure I could ever return to the classroom, there is just so much pervasive dogma in schools. It's the taboo around discussion and pushback that I find worst, I can handle bad ideas.

It is tragic, how these often well-intentioned actions amplify falsehoods. Chase Strangio in US vs. Skrmetti acknowledged that there simply is no evidence that puberty blockers reduce suicide, and yet the 'living son / dead daughter' argument persists, badly skewing decision-making. Strangio is a big deal in the movement, so this is a major admission.

Its the insistence of tying my speech and the denial of sex supremecy over gender that trigger every red flag and emotion I had against religion. It is not only wrong to question if a trans woman "is a woman", it is immoral and blasphemous. Thankfully the trans inquisition has passed but there are still people suffering from the after effects of it today. — Philosophim

Interesting take from someone raised religious. Wokeness as religion is one of those ideas so compelling it seems to rise up in a variety of ways. BTW, where are you writing from where the inquisition has passed? Here in Canada we just had another academic controversy when the 'father' of evidence based medicine, Dr. Gordon Guyatt, retracted his own paper under pressure from the lobby.

Philosophy in its increasing irrelevance did not try to expand to become relevant, but retreated to the comfortable re-examination of its old and failed philosophies. — Philosophim

I know some object to statements like that, but it sure resonates with me. I am a lay philosopher, but proud possessor of three 'woke' degrees (English, Social sciences, Education). What pains me about this is that philosophy could perhaps best resist dogma. Certainly, my areas of study are nearly completely ideologically captured.

Glad you found a better personal path!

Would you also love to hear how anthropological and biological takes on gender are grounded in philosophical presuppositions? For instance, did you know that Queer theory originated in the genealogical-ethnographic-historical studies of Foucault? — Joshs

Sorry for the late response Joshs, but to answer your questions,

Sure I would.

And yes-ish? I am a lay philosopher, recently interested, but I have come across lots of Foucault in my studies, usually in the field of education. I'm going to go ahead and assume that you have a much more detailed impression of the man and his work. Feel free to help me fill out gaps in knowledge!

But to my understanding, Foucault's was not a complementary approach, but rather a critical stance?

The first time I recall Foucault was in my undergrad sociology of deviance course. I recall strongly objecting to the idea that schizophrenia was a form of 'meaningful discourse' given that my brother had recently been compelled to take his anti-psychotics and had dramatically recovered from his own schizophrenia. He later said that compelled medication 'saved his life'.

Foucault always felt detached from reality to me after that. And he's certainly not 'modern'.

My initial comment, what I would 'love' to see, is modern philosophy interacting with modern evolutionary psychology (among other possibly fruitful academic intersections) to grow new understandings, rather than constant deconstruction and critique.

I guess I feel philosophy is weirdly absent from shaping the discourse today?

Did you leave teaching due to the turning tides? — Jeremy Murray

I left because I worked more than 40 hours a week in a thankless job. I taught math and constantly told kids to get a good math based degree to make good money. Took my own advice eventually. :)

BTW, where are you writing from where the inquisition has passed? — Jeremy Murray

I live in Texas where there wasn't much of one. But online was a different story.

What pains me about this is that philosophy could perhaps best resist dogma. Certainly, my areas of study are nearly completely ideologically captured. — Jeremy Murray

Correct. I feel philosophy is uniquely fitted to take this on and yet it has no brave pioneers pushing it to address current events. A large part of this is the field I feel, is set up to stop pioneers and original thinkers. It is ironically a very conservative and traditional field.

Sometimes, the only appropriate place for a particular person to ask about the things that concern them is the privacy of their diary.
— baker
But you are asking them. That's the point. — Philosophim

Like a good boy scout.

It's naive to think that one could talk about just anything with just anyone in just any situation.
— baker
Certainly. But you don't let other stop you from asking those questions on your own.

Aww. You remind me of my teachers from earlier phases of my education. They, too, would talk about the importance of questioning. But the further in education I went, the less we were encouraged to ask questions.

And sometimes you get answers that need to be spread to other people bravely and without cowardice.

And who decides that those answers "need to be spread", if not one's ego?

You remind me of my teachers from earlier phases of my education. They, too, would talk about the importance of questioning. But the further in education I went, the less we were encouraged to ask questions. — baker

I was a high school teacher for a few years. It is true that the older you get it seems the less comfortable people are with asking questions. If I had to guess its because questions from children are often simple to answer while questions from adults are not.

And who decides that those answers "need to be spread", if not one's ego? — baker

Ego is one motivation for sure. But there are others. Sometimes an idea is put into practice and the outcomes are positive. So the desire is to repeat those positive outcomes. Sometimes its based on a rational conclusion a person has made. Sometimes the spreading is not an insistence, but ensuring the ideas are exposed for others to think and question on.

Modern day problems are generated by modern day people. And if most modern day people are moving in a world of ideas produced by cutting edge philosophy of 200 years ago, — Joshs

Then the problems of modernity are aptly dealt with by 200-year-old philosophy. IF they're created by people who's worldview is 200-years old then those people are 'not modern' so neither would their problems.

Me thinks this is simply an incorrect analysis of most people's thinking.

i thought i might bring this one back from the dead: earlier, while reading Dawn, Nietzsche said the purpose of philosophy was entertainment. In The Republic, Plato unambiguously says philosophy is a search for truth.

And what do you think of what they said?

Nietzsche said the purpose of philosophy was entertainment — ProtagoranSocratist

What is entertainment? It must differ from liveliness and general social fraternization. Is all art and media simply expression that happens to fall under the auspices of "entertainment?" Could entertainment be... mere distraction? :chin:

Why or why not?

Perhaps to some people "truth" is merely entertainment (distraction) from an underlying reality that is devoid of such warm and splendid concepts men create for themselves to cope in an unforgiving world. That's a bit dark, however. So, perhaps, inversely, entertainment is reaching the depths of human need that mere facts and figures, despite providing access to the things we need, they themself could never fulfill?

But I don't think Nietzsche actually says or implies that the purpose of philosophy is entertainment. From what I have read (three to four of his books), he believes that philosophy at its best, i.e., genuine philosophy, is Die fröhliche Wissenschaft, the gay science: a joyous, playful, life-affirming creative activity.

Where he implies that philosophy is mere amusement, he is criticizing philosophers for their vanity, shallowness, habitual thinking, and so on.

And he is much closer to Plato than you might think—in some ways. He does, I think, believe that philosophy is a search for truth. It's just that their conceptions of the truth look very different.

EDIT: Incidentally, Adorno inherits this attitude of Nietzsche's in his negative dialectics, where philosophy is simultaneously (a) a playful and creative endeavour, and (b) a serious search for truth.

I found the relevant passage. It's a good one; I hadn't read it before.

As rococo horticulture arose from the feeling 'nature is ugly, savage, boring - come! let us beautify it! ' (embellir la nature) - so there again and again arises from the feeling ' science is ugly, dry, cheerless, difficult, laborious - come! let us beautify it!' something that calls itself philosophy. It wants, as all art and poetry want - above all to entertain: but, in accordance with its inherited pride, it wants to do this in a more sublime and exalted fashion and before a select audience. To create for these a horticulture whose principal charm is, as with the ' more common' kind, a deception of the eyes (with temples, di stant prospects, grottos, mazes, waterfalls, to speak in metaphors), to present science in extract and with all kinds of strange and unexpected illuminations and to involve it in so m uch indefiniteness, irrationality and reverie that one can wander in it ' as in wild nature' and yet without effort or boredom - that is no small ambition: he who has this ambition even dreams of thereby making superfluous religion, which with earlier mankind constituted the highest species of the art of entertainment. — Daybreak

I see this as a genealogical critique, an account of how philosophy came to be such a disappointment: the desire to entertain the elite.

If I had to guess its because questions from children are often simple to answer while questions from adults are not. — Philosophim

I think this is backwards. The simple questions are often mistaken as insignificant. Th ekin dof questions adults ask are relatively stupid and ideologically charged. The purity of innocence that children possess leads them to cut through the slop of so-called 'maturity'.

Children's statements and questions cut to the bone more so than most adults.

I left because I worked more than 40 hours a week in a thankless job. I taught math and constantly told kids to get a good math based degree to make good money. Took my own advice eventually. — Philosophim

I have never suggested to a single student that they should choose their degree based on what income they may be able to make. Any independent businessman I have ever spoken to states one key point in their success: Do something you care about. The reason being when the shit hits the fan you stick to it because you care.

I ask students what they want to be. Those who say 'rich' often have no idea what they wish to do once they have 'money'. Pressing this question I feel is the most relevant question to ask students in regards to their future. Goals without reasons are empty dreams.

Correct. I feel philosophy is uniquely fitted to take this on and yet it has no brave pioneers pushing it to address current events. A large part of this is the field I feel, is set up to stop pioneers and original thinkers. It is ironically a very conservative and traditional field. — Philosophim

Be brave. Tell us.

Every field of interest is full of people who are apathetic to some degree or another. Philosophers at least tend to be more self-reflective than in other fields I have found. There is a built in scepticism as it is clear to see how many commonly held views can seem like they lie on a solid rational foundation.

If anything, there are faults in philosophy (as well as science) due to how outsiders misrepresent and misuse what is being said.

A lot of people are just plain stupid. This is probably mainly due to poor education and being told to prioritise 'money' above personal passions and intrigue ... but some a re just plain dumb. No way around that until neural implants take off.

The aim & end of philosophy is the contemplation of the Good. This is why it's called the love of wisdom.

And what do you think of what they said? — Jamal

I think overall that the purpose of philosophy is entirely a matter of perspective and has multiple purposes. To me, they are both correct: if it wasn't entertainment, then there would be no motivation to do it, as it's a relatively un-productive discipline (aristotle says this, it's not me ragging on philosophy). Philosophy is also about truth and/or understanding this world we live in, that became pretty clear shortly after joining this forum.

What is entertainment? It must differ from liveliness and general social fraternization. Is all art and media simply expression that happens to fall under the auspices of "entertainment?" Could entertainment be... mere distraction? :chin:

Why or why not?

Perhaps to some people "truth" is merely entertainment (distraction) from an underlying reality that is devoid of such warm and splendid concepts men create for themselves to cope in an unforgiving world. That's a bit dark, however. So, perhaps, inversely, entertainment is reaching the depths of human need that mere facts and figures, despite providing access to the things we need, they themself could never fulfill? — Outlander

I think of entertainment as any type of activity structured around giving enjoyment (like watching movies, sports, novels, etc.). "Mere distraction" seems kinda derogatory, but also yes it could be that.

And you're getting at one of my big opinions about the "purpose" of philosophy, it's something that people just do by default. Even though relatively few people engage in the kind of systematic dialogue of Plato, Aristotle, and Kant, the ancient mythologies of people and the story telling have philosophical elements to them. People insult philosophy as being the domain of useless windbags, but it's not even a choice, people seem inclined to philosophize.

And he is much closer to Plato than you might think—in some ways. He does, I think, believe that philosophy is a search for truth. It's just that their conceptions of the truth look very different. — Jamal

yeah i don't have the attitude that would pit Plato against Nietzsche or vice versa, their ideas are very different but the way that Plato is describing balance of pleasures and self-discipline near the end of the book kinda reminded me of Nietzsche (i think in Ecce Homo, he says that people should not just act on whatever urge they have). One major difference though is that Plato's ideas of truth are otherworldly, yet Nietzsche was opposed to that mentality even though I don't think of Plato as an ascetic.

and thanks for pulling up the section of Dawn/Daybreak i was referring to.

The simple questions are often mistaken as insignificant. Th ekin dof questions adults ask are relatively stupid and ideologically charged. The purity of innocence that children possess leads them to cut through the slop of so-called 'maturity'. — I like sushi

I never said a simple question was insignificant. But simple questions are easier to answer than more complex ones. Part of the difficulty in answering a complex question is sifting through the cobwebs of incorrect ideology, differences in lived experience, and goofy things like personal attacks and hostile arguments.

I have never suggested to a single student that they should choose their degree based on what income they may be able to make. — I like sushi

You are not reading my statement with a charitable outlook then. I taught math. I was constantly asked, "Why should I learn math?" One of the answers is that if you are good at math, there are many high paying jobs with excellent benefits that are in demand and available. I never told a student who wanted to be a psychologist that they should go into math. You have an oddly hostile response here.

Be brave. Tell us. — I like sushi

Already have. Check out the posts I've made. I talk about trans gender issues. I talk about what an objective morality must have as its base. I constructed a theory of knowledge that solves a major problem of induction.

My point about the field comes from my personal experience. I have a master's in philosophy. I pursued it as a career with full passion and intent to explore, master, and publish works that would help people. I was discouraged every step of the way to 'stay in a lane', 'find what was popular' and just comment on old works to meet publishing quotas.

You are not reading my statement with a charitable outlook then. — Philosophim

I was reading it critically. What you wrote is what you wrote. If you meant something specific then be specific rather than rely on charitable interpretations.

Pointing out how your words may be read is a 'charitable' act. If you wish I can stay silent in the future.

You have an oddly hostile response here. — Philosophim

Perception.

I was discouraged every step of the way to 'stay in a lane', 'find what was popular' and just comment on old works to meet publishing quotas. — Philosophim

This kind of context helps. The reason for this is if you want to get papers published you are more likely to get published in areas that are hot topics. This is generally sound advice to someone pursuing a Phd.

Both Phd and Masters are about showing method rather than creating any ground breaking work.

Pointing out how your words may be read is a 'charitable' act. If you wish I can stay silent in the future. — I like sushi

Sure. Why do I want to listen to someone who's looking for a bone to pick then a decent conversation?

You have an oddly hostile response here.
— Philosophim

Perception. — I like sushi

And an accurate one.

This kind of context helps. The reason for this is if you want to get papers published you are more likely to get published in areas that are hot topics. This is generally sound advice to someone pursuing a Phd.

Both Phd and Masters are about showing method rather than creating any ground breaking work. — I like sushi

Yes. That's exactly my point. That is not training the mind and methods towards unique approaches and solving modern problems. It is training someone for years to not do so. Is it any wonder than that we have a field full of uncreative traditionally minded people who focus on work that isn't ground breaking or relevant to today?

I haven't looked through the replies yet, so don't know what's been discussed already or if I am retreading old ground, but I saw the title in passing on previous visits and the idea percolated in my head to some thoughts.

I joined this forum again after many years of not thinking about anything much philosophically after finishing my degree almost 20 years ago (wow!).

The intent was to just toy with ideas for the fun of it like the old Greek boys.

I actually became disillusioned with philosophy at the time of finishing my degree, having thought for a while before that, before completion, that it was going round in circles and many philosophers were saying the same things, just from slightly different points of view, and that it was mostly impotent.

This made me in the following years read more into the hard sciences as they were very clear about goals and achieving them with rationality.

Now though, having come back to it, with this forum, it has reminded me how it can be enjoyed just for its own sake. One of the awful issues when studying for a degree was, while we were studying very interesting topics, there was such pressure to meet deadlines that there was very little time to enjoy the subject matter.

It just felt like a constant conveyor belt of essays and exams, which it was. You could only pick one topic per semester as I recall and due to the tight deadlines it worked out better to just skip the rest once you picked one you wanted to write an essay on as it effectively 'wasted' time that could better be spent studying for that one subject/philosopher you chose to do the coursework on.

This outcome dependence really stymied the enjoyment.

I think I stated my point enough on that.

A 'useful', in the real world, Protestant work ethic sense, application of philosophy would be areas like politics and ethics.