What is the point of philosophy? — Oliver Purvis

What is the point of being human? Some philosophy looks like (and maybe is) word games. On the other hands we are thinking, loving, fearing, aging beings who know that we and all we love must die. That everything is fragile and passing. Our first order of business is perhaps to make peace with this or to justify an early exit. These are the questions forced on us by love, fear, and pain.

What practical advantage does it give us as a species? — Oliver Purvis

What 'spiritual' advantage does it give you as an individual? Why not this question? Let's consider the shape of your question. What do you already assume? Seemingly a science-inspired yet ultimately metaphysical and value-driven vision of how this or that practice should be justified.

I love philosophy for getting behind the question. In our asking we already know too much. We have already constrained the answer in the categories and norms we drag along with our questioning.

Very few people seem to really try to understand the big philosophical issues beyond a superficial level and those that do seem to get drawn to different viewpoints depending on how they approach the problems. — Oliver Purvis

Is this so clear? Why not call those issues big that everyone is drawn to? Religion and politics are philosophical. Philosophy as a list of 'official philosophers' is a sometimes bad sometimes good mere piece of the philosophical conversation that we largely are with our bodies as well as our minds.

If the soldier charges a machine gun nest, he answers certain questions with an action. To marry. To kill in anger. To steal. To sacrifice. To lie. This is lived philosophy, the living of the answers to the big issues. No doubt some are more articulate and more invested in being articulate than others, but this too is an implicit decision about the relative value of having the impressive words on hand.

If you are questioning the vanity of philosophy as a sort of would-be science, then I can sympathize. For me the great philosophers are fascinating personalities. They were born. They suffered, worked, thought, etc. They scribbled their better thoughts and died. I can find a 'use' for them that itself is not easily put into words. I try to put this use into words at times and thereby add to the genre, join the conversation. The danger is that the conversation becomes too precious and distant, and outsiders rightly suspect that (often enough) nothing important/living is being said. The boys are just being as clever as possible for one another. (And this too may partake in that.)

I wonder whether we will ever make real progress, actually solving some of the big issues so that certain schools of though can be laid to rest permanently. — Oliver Purvis

But what if this is like certain great poems or symphonies being laid to rest permanently? Why must philosophy be understood as a kind of ultimate science? Why not rather just a sequence of individuals sharing their wrestling with the fact of having been born into a particular place and time and language?

Do you want a quasi-mathematical theorem about the meaning of life? Does such a thing make sense? Or is the whole approach flawed? Do we ever conquer life with words? Words help, sure. But life is bigger than our words for it.

Thanks for your thoughts. I agree with you. I guess I was trying to express a kind of frustration, a sense that - occasionally - I find myself haunted by the possible pointlessness of existence. Very often I am intrigued and excited by many ideas, but now and then - after much reading, discussion and deep thought - I feel as though I am no further forward than before. Sure, I have a much better appreciation of the problems, but no concrete answers.
Maybe there are none. Perhaps it's the way philosophy is often phrased as a question - it suggests that maybe there are definite answers to be had. Without these answers, or the genuine possibility of one day finding them, we are left with the word games you mentioned.
Most of the time I find philosophy helpful and spiritually uplifting as you suggested. I guess I'm asking where you turn on the occasions when even philosophy feels empty!

Thanks for your thoughts. I agree with you. I guess I was trying to express a kind of frustration, a sense that - occasionally - I find myself haunted by the possible pointlessness of existence. Very often I am intrigued and excited by many ideas, but now and then - after much reading, discussion and deep thought - I feel as though I am no further forward than before. Sure, I have a much better appreciation of the problems, but no concrete answers.
Maybe there are none. Perhaps it's the way philosophy is often phrased as a question - it suggests that maybe there are definite answers to be had. Without these answers, or the genuine possibility of one day finding them, we are left with the word games you mentioned.
Most of the time I find philosophy helpful and spiritually uplifting as you suggested. I guess I'm asking where you turn on the occasions when even philosophy feels empty! — Oliver Purvis

I think what you're getting at, from my perspective at least, is that philosophy can help provide a working body, but you, we, must still figure out why we are as we are. Traditionally, when philosophy hits its wall, religious thinking arrives to offer a way around. I think a problem with such a way around is someone forgetting the philosophy that might have gotten them there. I think both philosophy and theology can coexist, but it's tricky.

Additionally, perhaps you can still find meaning in your life if you live by an ethic. For example, I attempt to live a life guided by honesty and love. At present, I'm not religious, yet I am able to think and feel my way through the day-to-day because of my grounded morality. For me that is what helps create meaning and helps answer the "Why?" that philosophy can't always answer.

Just my couple cents, take them as you will, cheers (Y)

Thank you for your thoughts. It's a funny old world!

I think if you're going to do philosophy, you need to be aware of what you are doing. What is philosophy?, what am I doing, exactly?, what purpose does this serve?, etc. If you read the big thinkers of the past, one of the patterns you'll see is an overarching self-consciousness about philosophy. Meta-philosophy just is part of the normal philosophizing. The very best philosophies are those that can capture and take account of themselves within their systems.

I'm skeptical of the modern "institutionalizing" of philosophy. Philosophy is not "just another discipline" to be put aside biology, psychology and statistics. Nor do I think philosophy should be aiming for its own dissolution (re: Russellian analytic philosophy) or reduced to a "handmaiden" to the sciences (re: "naturalism").

At its core, philosophy is the rational manifestation of humanity's religious nature. We want to know why we're here and where we're going, how we know what we know and the limits of this knowledge, whether there is a God and what happens after we die. Most crucially, we want and need to know how to live, because life is an eternal ambiguity with no simple algorithm. It is this latter observation that leads me to believe that philosophy is born from a certain helplessness, an anxiety in the face of moral ambiguity and spiritual discouragement. Hence why when we approach deep philosophical questions we usually do so in silence or with trepidation. And this is exactly what you see inside temples and churches, cathedrals and mosques, a deafening, breath-taking silence.

Not everything has to be of practical importance to be worth doing. Humans watch and debate sports, movies, read comic books, they go to art galleries and concerts, etc.

Not all science has a practical effect on our lives. It really doesn't matter if there is massive black hole at the center of the Andromeda Galaxy. But it's interesting.

That's why I cringe whenever the argument comes up that science exists for technology's sake. No, science, like philosophy, exists first and foremost because we're a curious species. We like to ask questions. We want to understand. We're puzzled by the world and ourselves.

What is the point of philosophy?

I agree with Marchesk's response - whether or not philosophy has a practical impact on our lives, the same can be said for many fields of interest. It seems that at the core of any philosophical problem is a 'need-to-know-solution', highlighting the curiosity of the human mind.

Philosophy, etymologically, is derived from the Greek words 'philos' meaning love and 'sophia' meaning wisdom, so (unless you didn't know already) philosophy = the love of wisdom.
In response to your question: 'what is the point in loving wisdom?' I'd respond 'why would you not?'.

Besides, philosophy is all about asking questions. It is a philosophical question to ask whether philosophy has a purpose, and that I think clearly illustrates the purpose of philosophy.

I find myself haunted by the possible pointlessness of existence. — Oliver Purvis

This is what philosophy is all about. Too provide meaning. But one must be creative and leave the box.

I agree with you. I guess I was trying to express a kind of frustration, a sense that - occasionally - I find myself haunted by the possible pointlessness of existence. Very often I am intrigued and excited by many ideas, but now and then - after much reading, discussion and deep thought - I feel as though I am no further forward than before. Sure, I have a much better appreciation of the problems, but no concrete answers. — Oliver Purvis

Very well put, my friend. I very much relate. The 'real' problem seems to be that nothing lasts. Everything passes. Time conquers all. We can't get out of this machine that destroys its products, this devouring mother. Some do believe in a realm apart from all this. I could never really believe it. And maybe there is something seductive in our mortality. Maybe it's all more beautiful this way. We can't wrap our fingers around it. We can't drag it away from the chaos and hide it safely in some lair outside of time. This forces us to give ourselves to the dying moment. It forces some of us to give ourselves to the void.

In my view, we are future-oriented beings. We save money. We repress various urges. We set alarms. In short, we make long term plans and keep promises. And this is close to what makes us a human. Yet the abstract mind can see the ultimate futility of all plans. There is no future, or (apparently) no stable and ultimate future. So our best laid plans are haunted by absurdity. At least for those of us who can't believe in some hidden world where the usual rules do not apply. 'The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.' As an atheist, I read 'God' as reality here. One might say that philosophy begins with the perception of our eerie situation, of our absurdity, fragility, etc. But then 'philosophy' is maybe too dry a word, especially when it's so often steered toward a kind of meta-science, which is to say away from the felt individual situation. For some it is a kind of chess we play to forget the terrible questions. It can be a fleeing into cleverness or into a sort of earnest objective work that forgets that earnest objective work is haunted by an ultimate futility.

At its core, philosophy is the rational manifestation of humanity's religious nature. We want to know why we're here and where we're going, how we know what we know and the limits of this knowledge, whether there is a God and what happens after we die. Most crucially, we want and need to know how to live, because life is an eternal ambiguity with no simple algorithm. It is this latter observation that leads me to believe that philosophy is born from a certain helplessness, an anxiety in the face of moral ambiguity and spiritual discouragement. Hence why when we approach deep philosophical questions we usually do so in silence or with trepidation. And this is exactly what you see inside temples and churches, cathedrals and mosques, a deafening, breath-taking silence. — darthbarracuda

Well said. To me this describes the real stuff. I almost hate the word 'philosophy' for being too preciously or artificially understood. As you say, it is a 'rational' manifestation of the religious urge. The urge takes a shape that demands a kind of conceptual clarity. What is it to be rational? We have some sense of what it means. We forbid ourselves a kind of foolishness. We want our words to have a certain weight or objectivity or universality. We become sensitive to the way our narrative sticks or does not stick together.

Yet the abstract mind can see the ultimate futility of all plans. There is no future, or (apparently) no stable and ultimate future. So our best laid plans are haunted by absurdity. — ff0

Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity.
What does man gain by all the toil at which he toils under the sun? — Ecclesiastes

I was on vacation, and I realized it would quickly pass and I would never get to do the vacation over again. That was a bit depressing.

I feel you. What we take in our hand we cannot hold for long. We are always dying and being reborn. One love object fails. Another appears. Slowly, though, the ability to love and adapt recedes. This old vessel betrays us. I'm between youth and old age, in possession of a virility that believes finally in its coming death. That's a good place from which to write love poems --poems to the Her behind all hers.

I suppose one could use the word 'God' for what is bigger than us in our situation. But from this perspective the comforting theories about God are a kind of war against God, a denial of God, an escape from our dark origin and endpoint.

ff0, I like your brain! Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread so far. I joined this forum a couple of days ago expecting to get no responses, so this has been interesting and enjoyable.
I feel that some haven't taken on board my original point fully (Perhaps I didn't express it very well). I totally get what you guys/girls are saying, but I must stress that the 'point' to philosophy that some of you have argued in favour of is something I generally agree with. So many spheres of life are fortified by an appreciation of philosophical ideas, so many situations dealt with more pragmatically and wholeheartedly. For so many years I have been fascinated by philosophical approaches to all manner of questions and on the whole this has enriched my intellectual life, provoked long and meaningful conversation with friends and helped me to tackle the trials and tribulations of everyday existence.
My question, I suppose, was more to do with where we find ourselves when the philosophy runs out. When our philosophy takes us around the houses, examining (maybe even acepting) everything from all sides, adopting contrasting or contradictory points of view, all the while appreciating how our outlook has been enriched by the journey...but...eventually...when we return to 'normality' and discover that nothing has really changed - then what?
I imagine I will always think philosophically and I am very grateful that there are others out there who have similar attitudes. But there are times when it all seems like intellectual posturing. Or distraction. Or very clever ways of explaining why we don't know or can't agree on certain things. Or finding comfort in ideas that turn us on despite knowing that other equally/more intelligent people hold opposing views.
When the biggest questions are asked (Ok, 'big' is a relative term but I'm sure you all know what I mean) and no definitive answer is forthcoming...where next? Faith? Despair? Seems a shame to throw away a life time of philosophical thought for either of those.
I must stress I don't get to this state often, yet it does happen periodically and I must accept my feelings during these times. Can it be written of as merely a hormonal imbalance or something similar? At the time, as bleak as it may sound, there is a striking sense of intlectual and philosophical clarity.
Of course, eventually it passes and the wheel keeps spinning.

ff0, I like your brain! — Oliver Purvis

Thanks. I like your OP. I've seen others resent the question, but to me it's a very philosophical question. I scratch out the word because lots of wisdom writing is found in literature, etc. It's found in rock lyrics, rap lyrics, comical TV shows. It's found in interviews with artists. I have, actually, read lots of the great philosophers. And some of them are heroes for me. But the dark side of foolosophy is the usual intellectual vanity that I myself have been guilty of, especially in my younger days --though the war is never finally won. In short, we can be seduced by nice little formulae and close our eyes and hearts to what doesn't fit these formulae. We can make too much of some trendy jargon. As I see it, we want to become good and beautiful people. We want to know and appreciate good and beautiful people. I suppose most of what I'm getting at is 'there' in a person who is good and beautiful without having read and parroted this or that famous thinker. Direct access! Life, experience, moral-aesthetic progress. Books are great but secondary. I suspect you already get and feel all of this in your own words --else you wouldn't have been so kind.

or so many years I have been fascinated by philosophical approaches to all manner of questions and on the whole this has enriched my intellectual life, provoked long and meaningful conversation with friends and helped me to tackle the trials and tribulations of everyday existence.
My question, I suppose, was more to do with where we find ourselves when the philosophy runs out. — Oliver Purvis

A good and deep question. For me the stoics among others come to mind. I don't want to die whining or biting my nails. I want to stand up straight and calmly see the void envelop me. There's a ridiculous movie, The Scorpion King, that nevertheless had some charming dialogue. Too tough guy heroes who are friends meet. "Live free," one says as they grasp one another's forearms. "Die well," says the other.

Live free. Die well.

It's not a bad four words. Why live free? Why die well? Because it feels right. Because it sounds right. For me that's the truth behind the epistemological 'posturing. ' Even this posturing feels right at the time for those invested in a certain notion of responsible, thorough 'rationality.' Indeed, my own position evolved from within a more stiff and earnest in-retrospect-posturing. To be sure, it sucks to suffer. It sucks to die except when the sucky suffering makes this the best alternative available. To suffer well and to die well is just a slight desuckification of the situation. And yet maybe the highest thing, too.

This place where philosophy runs out is also at the center of my interest. It strikes me also as the place where the 'real' philosophy begins. Where our little formulae become dust. There's a strange community in this place of death. Petty differences fall away. We love. We care. We fear. We know that we are terribly and wonderfully in something (the world) that envelops and overpowers us. A person might call it God, but slapping a friendly human face on it neutralizes the terror of it. It's that terror and mystery that we can stand against. Gallow's humor comes to mind. I can't say that I envy those who deny death and the limits of language, because there's a terrible beauty to be had where the philosophy runs out. On the other hand, there is sometimes the most profound agony there, as every possible comforting phrase becomes a lie in one's mouth. I understand suicide. It's not on my agenda, but I understand why sensitive and thoughtful individuals sometimes reach for a decisive act. They flee the indignity of being cast into this haunted house.

I must stress I don't get to this state often, yet it does happen periodically and I must accept my feelings during these times. Can it be written of as merely a hormonal imbalance or something similar? At the time, as bleak as it may sound, there is a striking sense of intlectual and philosophical clarity.
Of course, eventually it passes and the wheel keeps spinning. — Oliver Purvis

This is great stuff, man. I don't think it's any kind of sickliness. The daily business of the world just doesn't know what to do with the eerie thinking that contemplates its nullity. The best it can do is create yet another business (therapy, etc.) But individually the therapist himself goes home and surely, at times, feels an alienation from his work day pose. He gets a check for playing a certain role, wearing a certain face. If he his doubts, he has to tuck them away like we all do to keep the rent paid or the wife happy. If we don't know what the hell it is all about, we usually do know that we don't want it all to fall apart in the next month. So we play along. We do what one does. We react. Occasionally someone snaps and ties a noose or becomes violent toward others. Then it's someone's paycheck to clean up the mess. Generations come and go. Wise and unwise things are said and recorded. But the coming and going continues, largely ineffable, swamping our wise words. I connect this 'vision' with the striking clarity you mention. It's a clarity about our situation and the way that exceeds tidy sayings. 'Always the procreant urge of the world.' This vision makes me feel large and small at the same time. I can participate and assent to this vast machine I've been thrown into. I can be willing to look at it in its glory and filth. It opens up a deep connection to every other heroically awake person out there, no matter their preferred lingo.

*I bought an old typewriter lately, on which I write something like poetry. But it tries to tell the truth in a few well-chosen words.

Large this life that buries me.
Large this grave for dreams.

Whoa. It’s getting feely.

Hearing the question as, “How does philosophy benefit human societies?”...Does anyone have some interesting historical info about philosophers and philosophy in general?

What is the point of philosophy? — Oliver Purvis

Always a good question, brought up afresh many times.

I think there are many issues for questing minds to work on in the real world that are more pressing than what seems like idle speculation. For example: population control, global warming, environmental degradation, food production, preserving endangered species, disease prevention, eliminating severe endemic poverty, the meaning of work, etc. etc. etc.

What is the point of philosophy? — Oliver Purvis

To ask questions, just as it is the point of science to answer them. There are many "philosophers" that simply don't like the answers science provides. And yes, that is their argument they make (I don't like that answer, or that answer makes me feel less important, or less meaningful that what I delude myself into believing, etc.) against many of the answers science provides. As a result, they keep looking to philosophy to solve the questions, when philosophy hasn't solved anything as it creates the problems science has to solve, (or not solve in the case of those improper questions that are often asked in philosophy) or look to religion when religion has been trying to answer questions for thousands of years, most of which science has overturned.

Whoa. It’s getting feely. — Brianna Whitney

Indeed. I've definitely tried to stir up some feely foolosophy. For me that's foolosophy at its best: life and death, love and loss, a brave and/or wise response to having been born here.

"The danger is that the conversation becomes too precious and distant, and outsiders rightly suspect that (often enough) nothing important/living is being said."

Anyone who has slogged their way through the contents of social science journals can certainly relate to that sentiment.

"Why must philosophy be understood as a kind of ultimate science?"

I dunno. I think it can do a damn good job of it in the hands of a self-proclaimed scientist like Nietzsche, or via the emprico-scientific syntheses of Merleau-Ponty. Science itself, shorn of scientism and recognizing itself to be ideology alongside other cultural products, can return to its original task as a branch of philosophy as it was for the Greeks.

The concerns you mention above owe their existence to formulations of concepts like environment, population dynamics, etc, that stem from sciences whose central metaphors derive from prior philosophical speculation and the mathematical formulations they contributed.
Today's most pragmatic and practical concerns are the product of frameworks of understanding which were born as philosophcal speculation. By getting involved in the solution of these practical problems, you are not getting in on the ground floor, you're at the tail end of a long historical process of thought.

scientism and recognizing itself to be ideology alongside other cultural products — Joshs

Alarm bells ring...

I'll grant that philosophy begat science, but I will not grant that science is an ideology.

I view much of the content of philosophy (probably the most useful part) as a branch of intellectual history. Modern philosophy has continued on with part of the tradition after science branched off and became a field unto itself.

I dunno. I think it can do a damn good job of it in the hands of a self-proclaimed scientist like Nietzsche, or via the emprico-scientific syntheses of Merleau-Ponty. Science itself, shorn of scientism and recognizing itself to be ideology alongside other cultural products, can return to its original task as a branch of philosophy as it was for the Greeks. — Joshs

Yeah, that sounds pretty good. I don't know MP, but I know Nietzsche well and have a fondness for early Heidegger (pre B&T) who comes to mind as I read that passage.

I do have some bias toward the individual quasi-religious function of philosophy. We look for words that allow us to live and die with a kind of nobility. The social question is part of this. But life is short, and an individual may come around to seeing that he probably won't put much of a dent in the world's thinking. The situation becomes especially personal. 'I' can't, ultimately, change that many hearts and minds. I can of course adopt as a spiritual goal a certain world-improving role. But even here one might decide that the effort is best or more authentically spent 'locally.'

I'll grant that philosophy begat science, but I will not grant that science is an ideology. — Bitter Crank

Perhaps 'actual' science is not an ideology. But the word 'science' is IMV massively entangled in ideology. See the quote below.

There are many "philosophers" that simply don't like the answers science provides. — Harry Hindu

I don't think 'science' even tries to answer the most profound questions. Moreover, I don't see how science can provide its own foundation. Engineering and medicine earn our trust more or less by giving us what we want. But the idea of eternal, universal truth sounds pretty theological to me. In short, its foundation looks to be largely pragmatic or 'irrational.' We keep doing what scratches the itch. By putting philosopher in quotes, you are (as I see it) linking the heroic 'payload' of the words science and philosophy in an ideological way --as if the 'deepest' kind of talk humans are capable of is the defense/worship of science.

My question, I suppose, was more to do with where we find ourselves when the philosophy runs out. — Oliver Purvis

Would it make a difference if philosophy were simply renamed "critical thinking"? Folk may make the mistake of wanting answers when what it mostly teaches is a structure of good thought habits. By applying thinking to really extreme problems, dealing with everyday problems ought to be made easier.

More generally, if philosophy is functioning well, it ought to be the engine room of culture. So we might study it to learn its skills. And then as a social institution doing a job, it should be generating the wider view that defines the space of possibilities for society. It should articulate the alternatives rather than aim to solve the problems as such.

You seem to suggest that philosophy ought to be more like science - an evolving story of ever better theories. While philosophy ought to keep "improving", it is a more consciously historic exercise for good reason. Bad ideas and wrong turns are worth keeping alive in the institutional memory if the focus is on learning critical thinking skills and enlarging the space of the possible for cultural-level thought.

Then on the question of how philosophy relates to everyday living, I don't think it is that great as either some general life pursuit or self-help manual.

If you have some kind of deep curiosity about existence, then you are going to wind up wanting to scratch that itch. But also, there is a consequence. The cost of a critical thinking mindset is that living a life can become quite an abstract exercise. It can divert you away from actually living that life in a usefully balanced fashion. It can become an excuse not to properly engage. So if "living a good life" is the primary goal, then positive psychology or something more applied - even religion - is a better thing to invest your effort in.

Philosophy can take you out of yourself, propel you into the absolutely abstract. But I wouldn't rely on it to bring you back to yourself. We are social creatures, formed by our cultural actions. So we only find ourselves through the negotiations of actually living a life, not by chancing upon the right recipe in some philosophy text.

So short answer is that philosophy is absolutely central to cultural development. It was the institutionalised habit of critical thought that created the space of possibilities which then underwrote 2500 years of rapid social evolution.

And if you have a curiosity about existence bordering on the obsessive, then philosophy is the base camp for that expedition into the abstract.

But if you are troubled by life, then doing philosophy is not itself an answer. It could end up more isolating than helpful, unless it is balanced by some social and cultural actions as a result. The question is does it return you to the world in some useful fashion? If it is being used as a refuge from the world, then it is not in fact functioning very usefully.

So we only find ourselves through the negotiations of actually living a life, not by chancing upon the right recipe in some philosophy text. — apokrisis

Well said. What may be usefully found in a philosophy text, though, is this kind of reminder about the limitations of any mere text.

What may be usefully found in a philosophy text, though... — ff0

Hah. Philosophy in a nutshell - the art of productive disagreement. Everything said becomes the departure point of its own possible contradictions. :)

Whereas living a life as a social creature is mostly about productive agreements....

Perhaps 'actual' science is not an ideology. But the word 'science' is IMV massively entangled in ideology. See the quote below. — ff0

We're digging the hole deeper but not getting anywhere closer to the truth, whatever that is. Actual, as opposed to imitation science? What is ideological about causation? About the laws of thermodynamics? What is ideological about "Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared." or Darwin's finches? or the first through fifth extinctions, now heading into the sixth? or the San Andreas or Madrid fault? or is this squirrel a hybrid or a separate species? Or climate change? What are the genes that contribute to invincible stupidity?

I don't think 'science' even tries to answer the most profound questions. — ff0

One would think that after 2500 years, philosophy would have had more success in answering the most profound questions. Maybe, you think?

Who said it's about answering questions? Again, this assumes that philosophy is a kind of science. We can also think of philosophy as a questioning that reveals our ignorance to us, a questioning that guards us against our tendency to be smug and complacent.

Hah. Philosophy in a nutshell - the act of productive disagreement. Everything said becomes the departure point of its own possible contradictions. :)

Whereas living a life as a social creature is mostly about productive agreements.... — apokrisis

I don't know. Seems like total agreement has no need for creative compromise.