I'm just going to ramble here.

I have read Wittgenstein many times, and think his metaphor of throwing away the ladder once climbed upon is apt here. Namely, that we do philosophy because we feel disenfranchised in some way in regards to the hand that life has dealt us. Plato, whom I regard as one of the greatest philosophers, would not have been so great had his best friend and father figure not been put to trial and eventually his death. The Stoics would not have been known to this day had they not felt anxious or even depressed about what is or isn't under their control.

I'm not going to name any names; but, a very large population that inhabits this forum and the previous old PF have had emotional issues. I can somewhat confidently say that philosophy has been a coping mechanism. However, I'm at a point where, as the fly stuck in a bottle, I have come to the realization that I feel like a hamster stuck in a wheel.

To try and answer my own question, philosophy has allowed me to appreciate things much more than usual and not take things for granted. So, hence my aesthetic appreciation of arguments, the Platonic forms, and logic, which I still struggle to understand. A large portion of my interest in philosophy is an undying sense of curiosity and wonder about 'things', the world, and other people. This is to highlight the positive aspect of philosophy instead of the pessimism and absurdism I have encountered to a great deal in my dealings with philosophy.

Perhaps, that is then the purpose of philosophy. To appreciate everything around you and not just dwell on the unhappiness and sadness that happens in this world. Of course one can dwell on such matters and write about it; but, for how long can one obsess over injustice or unhappiness? Perhaps I'm being in my own way somewhat selfish here; but, the over examined life is or would be an unsatisfying one to go through.

One prominent quote that stands out in my mind is that philosophy is one step behind religion. That is to say, that philosophy is the stepping stone towards embracing religion or the "mystical".

I'll leave it at that.

Sometimes, I believe philosophy is an attempt to find peace.
Animals are on a 'higher level' than us, they also have peace in their simple lives. Finding food, finding a place to sleep, procreate, that's it. We were like them once, so perhaps it's this disconnection with our true nature that triggers this need to think about things? Perhaps philosophy is a response of our minds to the fact that we're not experiencing life like we should? Maybe this is why rough times in our lives trigger a desire to think about things?
Interesting question :) I wonder what the rest thinks about this.

I don't think it's clear that there is 'a' purpose of philosophy although it certainly has been put to uses. And moreover I think there's an autonomy of philosophy that ought to be upheld, one that affirms it's absolute indifference to any 'use'. I see it not unlike a giant, thundering river which you can only really dip into every now and then, and, if you study hard enough, be lucky enough to map some of its many banks. So I think there's something deeply impersonal about philosophy, and while it's entirely possible to use it as a psychological crutch or whathave you, there's nothing about it that necessitates that use.

That said, there's nothing quite like wonder at that which exhibits indifference, and some of the strongest feelings are aroused precisely by incomprehension. Flaubert, on writing, once wrote: "What a heavy oar the pen is, and what a hard current is the idea, when one digs into it!"; and I think this is as true of philosophy as it is of literature: we dig our oars, steer our little boats, and the indifference of the currents always threaten to overwhelm us. There's a joy in that, even if a Sisyphean joy. Which is not to say that philosophy exists 'for' your joy, or sadness, or any affect. It does it's own thing regardless of you (or anyone).

I don't think it's clear that there is 'a' purpose of philosophy although it certainly has been put to uses. — StreetlightX

If you don't mind me asking, what use does philosophy have? I understand that from (Western) philosophy sprang about all various and different fields, and there's some phenomenon over on Wikipedia where if one digs deep enough almost all topics end up leading to philosophy. Again, using the backdrop of my previous thread on Reason and Emotions, I feel as though philosophy has a personal use for me. For example, I use it as a template to understand the world. But, my world isn't the same as yours. My use of philosophy is motivated by desires and emotions, not 'pure reason'. They say philosophy begins in wonder, and I don't think it can be put in any other way, shape, or form that would get the point across clearer.

And moreover I think there's an autonomy of philosophy that ought to be upheld, one that affirms it's absolute indifference to any 'use'. — StreetlightX

This is questionable because philosophy ought to have a use, be it moral, ethical, or pragmatic.

So I think there's something deeply impersonal about philosophy, and while it's entirely possible to use it as a psychological crutch or whathave you, there's nothing about it that necessitates that use. — StreetlightX

I find this hard to understand. At one end of the spectrum philosophy is the mother of all other fields, yet at the other it is also the least representative of anything objective or out there in the world. What does that say about philosophy? I'm not quite certain.

That said, there's nothing quite like wonder at that which exhibits indifference, and some of the strongest feelings are aroused precisely by incomprehension. — StreetlightX

Quite the contrary. Philosophy is not indifferent like say mathematics or physics is. It's unique in its appeal to human emotions to make sense of ethical statements and the like. On, the other hand there is analytic philosophy, which you might have in mind here instead of continental philosophy. Yes, there is a divide between the two (a rather pretentious one if you ask me); but, both originate from the same emotions driving people to want to deepen their understanding about the world, etc.

Ought to? Says who? I think you 'ought to' put your own question into question - why is 'use' so important to you? I don't demand that you ought to have a 'use' - which would be a vulgar effacement of your autonomy - and I don't see why philosophy 'ought' to have a 'use', which has the brass tang of an ugly utilitarian approach to a subject which I think ought to exceed all such considerations.

Because meaning is use. We're not talking about Platonic forms, are we?

I couldn't disagree more. I believe philosophy is far more humble than its trappings. We are all philosophers. It is an activity of anyone with a world view. We make decisions every day that reveal a commitment to philosophical positions, however sound they may be, and whether or not we recognize we committed to them. It's like voting; if you don't vote you still have made a choice that impacts the election. It was just a poorly informed choice. Or more accurately, the choice was based on at least some error that could have been eliminated. Philosophy constantly considers (reappraises) the shifting criteria we use to make decisions based on insufficient information and informs the ego (our operating system) abductively.

What other human enterprise has purpose? Aren't they all, everything we humans do, driven by a sense of wonder? There is no real or better purpose in science or literature or anything else is there?

In fact it seems philosophy has an advantage over other fields in that philosophers recognize that there is no real purpose to anything at all.

Eugh, you can do better than just sprouting off a desiccated saying like it has any relevance to what we're talking about.

We are all philosophers. — Monitor

Yeah, we definitely disagree. I can't imagine a deeper trivialisation of philosophy than this.

Fine.

Would it be uncharitable to say that philosophy has already served its purpose? All the unrealized potential that people had, driven by wonder, curiosity, and the like, have been realized throughout the span of more than two millennia in the form of all the various fields that have sprung up from philosophy.

In other words, what more does philosophy have to offer, or am I being uncharitable now?

why is 'use' so important to you? I don't demand that you ought to have a 'use' - which would be a vulgar effacement of your autonomy - and I don't see why philosophy 'ought' to have a 'use', which has the brass tang of a ugly utilitarian approach to a subject which I think ought to exceed all such considerations — StreetlightX

:up:

I wonder if what you say has anything to do with Wittgensteinian language games? It seems much of how we think has to do with purposeful actions/deeds above all else. That's why we seek ''use'' rather than something else. I'd be very grateful if you could share with me this ''something else'' - that other, perhaps greater, non-utilitarian thing.

Fine.

Would it be uncharitable to say that philosophy has already served its purpose? All the unrealized potential that people had, driven by wonder, curiosity, and the like, have been realized throughout the span of more than two millennia in the form of all the various fields that have sprung up from philosophy.

In other words, what more does philosophy have to offer, or am I being uncharitable now? — Posty McPostface

It's not at all clear what you're asking. 'What more does philosopher have to offer'..? To who? For what? In comparison to...? I don't understand how someone who can profess such affinity for Wittgenstein can so consistently ask questions which are so confused. 'Unrealized potential driven by wonder realized thoughout the span of millennia in the form of various fields....': this is not a sensical sentence.

It's not at all clear what you're asking. — StreetlightX

So, returning to the question posed in the OP. What purpose does philosophy have or whether it can answer its own questions? You responded by saying:

I don't think it's clear that there is 'a' purpose of philosophy although it certainly has been put to uses — StreetlightX

But, then you say:

I don't see why philosophy 'ought' to have a 'use', which has the brass tang of an ugly utilitarian approach to a subject which I think ought to exceed all such considerations. — StreetlightX

My question in my previous post is in regards to whether we are being charitable or sincere in regards to a field of study that is all about what ought to be done or living a good life. If you think that philosophy ought not to have any use apart from standing as some independent 'entity' of some sorts, which you elaborate in your first post, then I'm baffled by what I think as some inconsistency or gap in my understanding of what philosophy is.

Does that make sense now?

I'll leave the non sequiturs aside.

and I don't see why philosophy 'ought' to have a 'use' — StreetlightX

Then how can it be trivialized any further by saying that it is ubiquitous?

Well then, let me be as trivial as possible. If you’re good enough at philosophy then you can likely convince a university to pay for your clothes, your food, and the occasional conference trip to some beautiful part of the globe with nice beaches and warm weather. Personally, when I was, say, twenty-two, I used to deeply resent the fact that most of the academic world seems to take up philosophy for this purpose. But now it seems to me perhaps as good a reason as any. I suppose this is one way in which philosophy can be a “means to find peace” for some. I’m not sure how much philosophical value there is grinding lenses till your lungs kill you at forty four.

Spinoza could not help but to examine what was before him. We all do by degree.

We're getting hung up on the trappings

I would like to clarify any ambiguity about my attitude towards philosophy. I am not proposing that philosophy serve as a utilitarian purpose here, since what utility does the Mona Lisa serve?

It's quite clear from what I've read about the dropout rates of grad school philosophy, that the people who make it through it are motivated by reasons apart from material gain or financial wellbeing. So, hence I return back to my original premise, that philosophy serves an affective need to be fulfilled... in some intellectual sense or otherwise.

An interesting corollary question would be to ask other members what affective need does philosophy fulfill in you?

I hope I clarified my position adequately.

"What's the purpose of philosophy?"

Is it just me or does this limit the scope of potential purposes/applications of philosophy to a single aspect?

Perhaps asking what's a purpose of philosophy would be a better question as it rids the question of the bias of central purpose?

Meow!

G

Spinoza could not help but to examine what was before him. We all do by degree.

We're getting hung up on the trappings — Monitor

I'm with Nietzsche on this, in that I doubt philosophical motives are ever that straight-forward and noble.

I would like to clarify any ambiguity about my attitude towards philosophy. I am not proposing that philosophy serve as a utilitarian purpose here, since what utility does the Mona Lisa serve? It's quite clear from what I've read about the dropout rates of grad school philosophy, that the people who make it through it are motivated by reasons apart from material gain or financial wellbeing. So, hence I return back to my original premise, that philosophy serves an affectual need to be fulfilled in some intellectual sense.. — Posty McPostface

Sure, I understand. But this is also a typical philosophical move that ties us up in knots. Our opening salvo is to distinguish the material, the base, the bodily, the pleasurable, from the intellectual, the noble, the spiritual, and sublime. And I would like to suggest that this is not the best way to approach anything human. Heidegger rushed Being & Time in order to gain tenure, Hegel was motivated by bitterness towards his Tübingen classmates, Dostoevsky wrote to pay off his gambling debts, etc. etc. Could they have written these only from 'pure' motives? It's a question worth asking.

We can certainly accept that there are "reasons apart from material gain" for philosophy and still be skeptical about how philosophy plays into the full gamut of human goals, desires, inclinations, wills to power; a crude reductionism to "material gain" is not our only alternative.

There is an expression "doing something for its own sake". Perhaps philosophy is one of those things that is, in many cases, done for its own sake.

But this is also a typical philosophical move that ties us up in knots. — Ilyosha

How so? Genuinely interested.

Our opening salvo is to distinguish the material, the base, the bodily, the pleasurable, from the intellectual, the noble, the spiritual, and sublime. And I would like to suggest that this is not the best way to approach anything human. — Ilyosha

What alternative do you propose? The Nietzschean will to power?

Heidegger rushed Being & Time in order to gain tenure, Hegel was motivated by bitterness towards his Tübingen classmates, Dostoevsky wrote to pay off his gambling debts, etc. etc. — Ilyosha

But, what does that prove?

We can certainly accept that there are "reasons apart from material gain" for philosophy and still be skeptical about how philosophy plays into the full gamut of human goals, desires, inclinations, wills to power; a crude reductionism to "material gain" is not our only alternative. — Ilyosha

Sure, there are differing motives for doing philosophy. My primary question that I just stumbled upon in making this thread through my response to you is, "What affective need does philosophy fulfill?"

Is it just me or does this limit the scope of potential purposes/applications of philosophy to a single aspect?

Perhaps asking what's a purpose of philosophy would be a better question as it rids the question of the bias of central purpose? — Mayor of Simpleton

Well, I couldn't phrase the question differently without sounding illiterate or my grasp of English is eluding me.

Allow me to rephrase the question:

What purpose does philosophy serve you?

I'm sure the answers will be various; but, some common theme might become apparent.

If you think that philosophy ought not to have any use apart from standing as some independent 'entity' of some sorts... — Posty McPostface

Ugh, no. Philosophy is a discipline and a practice like any other - metallurgy say. You learn some techniques, hone your craft, create some good pieces, if you're lucky, and if you practice and study hard enough. But ultimately you contribute to a body of practice that far exceeds you. But when you ask the metallurgist: what's the use of what you do? Well - who cares? This is just some external question that has nothing to do the fact of the practice of metallurgy. It's gossip, window-dressing for the celebrity rag.

There is an expression "doing something for its own sake". Perhaps philosophy is one of those things that is, in many cases, done for its own sake. — MetaphysicsNow

That doesn't quite sound right, or maybe it's a tautology. I think philosophy serves a need. I'm quite interested in what need that may be.

Sure, "doing something for its own sake" might need to be unpacked, but I don't think it unpacks into a tautology. If you do something for its own sake, typically that thing has an interest for you that does not require some utilitarian analysis in terms of reaching some independent goal: it may not even make you very happy to do it in some cases.

Philosophy is a discipline and a practice like any other - metallurgy say. — StreetlightX

What do you mean by "practice" here?

How so? Genuinely interested. — Posty McPostface

One fails to recognize the full gamut of motives, intentions, needs, desires, etc. that feed the practice of philosophy.

What alternative do you propose? The Nietzschean will to power? — Posty McPostface

How about we start with: philosophizing has many different purposes, helps fulfill many different types of motives for many different types of people in many different types of ways.

I'll just note here that I find it very strange that you keep trying to reduce all claims to some alternative super-claim.

But, what does that prove? — Posty McPostface

That the very highest expressions of human philosophical ability have been produced in part for the purpose of satisfying a wide variety motives, intentions, needs, desires, etc., such as competitiveness, careerism, monetary gain, and bitter jealousy. However, that is not to say that this is the "real" purpose or motivation behind these texts, over/against other intellectual and affective motives, intentions, goals, etc. etc. The purpose of philosophizing can be, in one and the same act, settling old scores and basking in wonder at the majesty of the universe.[

Sure, there are differing motives for doing philosophy. My primary question that I just stumbled upon in making this thread through my response to you is, "What affective need does philosophy fulfill?" — Posty McPostface

All kinds of needs in all kinds of ways.

It reads better as the original, but is less a question and more an implied statement wearing a questions clothing.

One of the purposes (not just a purpose or the purpose) of philosophy (for me) is not only to ask questions, but to analyse questions in the attempt to ask better questions that avoid implied statements that appear to be questions. :wink:

Meow!

G

Got it Greg. Took me some time to conceptually polish that turd up.

I'll just rest my case and stick to philosophers being known as lovers of wisdom.