there are, as far as I can tell, three main reasons:

1. philosophers are by their very nature, thinkers. which means that "doing philosophy" consists of sitting in a room with the curtains drawn, thinking, very hard, for long periods of time. this does not, on the face of it, seem to be the sort of thing that get up and go entrepreneurs do. so, at a basic level, philosopher = introvert, entrepreneur = extrovert.

2. there is no money in philosophy, so none of the philosophers you've ever met have a spare half a million lying around in spare cash to set up a think tank or donate to some university science program.

3. entrepreneurs don't tend to do things that are good for society, they tend to do things that are going to work out well for them. hands up anyone who thinks that Elon Musk's spaceship to Mars is helping anyone on Earth right now? Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk et al don't particularly care about homeless people or third world plumbing or affordable health care or overcrowded prisons, all they really care about are their pet projects and how many shiny tokens they own. there will be exceptions to this, of course, like Bill Gates for example, but without spending three years studying the entire corpus of world entrepreneurs and their philanthropic habits I think we can safely generalise that, as a species, they do not think about the rest of us at all. which is how they got to be like that in the first place.


Kaarlo Tuomi

Because most are more-or-less misanthropes, even if some, like Franklin, found some pleasure in company.

So why is it that most people that are interested in philosophy aren't interested in Entrepreneurship? — Gitonga

Most people generally are not interested in philosophy, at least the sorts of issues we talk about here. Unless you have data suggesting otherwise, I'm not convinced that entrepreneurs are less interested in philosophy than other types.

If the question though is why there aren't more entrepreneurial efforts to promote philosophy, the answer probably is that philosophy simply doesn't sell.

If the question though is why there aren't more entrepreneurial efforts to promote philosophy, the answer probably is that philosophy simply doesn't sell. — Hanover

It creates value in forms invisible to balance sheets. It's worse for it than not selling.

"What actionable insights does philosophy give you?"
uhhh... - philosophy graduate
"Hey can you monitor this production chain and assess if the desired tolerance is violated?"
Sure, boss! -engineering graduate

Maybe "business' is just to... I don't know, real and substantive, down to earth.

The following statement is certainly not true for everyone interested in philosophy, but it IS true of some: some philosophers are not rooted in their own bodies or in the material world. They yearn for the abstract 'other world'.

In my opinion, philosophers need to be well grounded in the physical world of their mammalian bodies -- including their mammalian brain -- and the sensory environment to which the body is very sensitive. Get grounded before you get into too much abstraction.

Acceptance of one's embodiment and groundedness can be difficult to achieve.

I am now departing for a week on the north shore of Lake Superior. I'm taking along plenty of printed matter so I don't have to be too embodied and grounded in cold lake water and skin-frying sunshine, hordes of mosquitos, and all that hideous physical stuff.

Entrepreneurship consumes an incredible amount of time. Philosophy can consume a large amount of time. The two pursuits don't directly contribute to breakthroughs in the other.

However there are some philosophers who have made some of the crossover. Donald Davidson attended Harvard Business School. Wittgenstein studied engineering.

I may be wrong but I think I remember Socrates studied at the London School of Economics. It's where he came up with the lyrics to "You can't always get what you want."

Perhaps the missing piece of ethical sciences is what dissuades philosophers from entrepreneurship, if indeed they are thus dissuaded, which sounds plausible to me. I imagine engineering and philosophy get along better, because there is a bridge between engineering and philosophical topics about reality and knowledge: the physical sciences. I’ve proposed that a field of ethical sciences could likewise bridge the gap between the philosophy of morality and justice, and entrepreneurship:



Every practical activity involves using some tool to do some job. At the lowest level of abstraction away from the actual use of whatever tools to do whatever jobs, technological fields exist to maintain and administrate those tools, and business fields exist to maintain and administrate those jobs.

A level of abstraction higher, engineers work to create the tools that those technologists administrate, while entrepreneurs work to create the jobs that those businesspeople administrate.

Those engineers in turn heavily employ the findings of the physical sciences, which could be said to be finding the "natural tools" available from which engineers can create new tools tailored to specific needs. And though this step in the chain seems overlooked in society today, the ethical sciences that I envision could be said to find the "natural jobs" that need doing, inasmuch as they identify needs that people have, which we might also frame as market demands, toward the fulfillment of which entrepreneurs can tailor the creation of new jobs.

And those physical and ethical sciences each rely on philosophical underpinnings to function, thereby making philosophy, at least distantly, instrumental to any and all practical undertakings across society.

Science and business go hand in hand. Karl Popper's philosophy shaped the modern scientific method.

entrepreneurs don't tend to do things that are good for society, they tend to do things that are going to work out well for them. — Kaarlo Tuomi

What a narrow minded assertion! Entrepreneurs create wealth, they put ideas into practice, They make the world a better place for everyone.

Entrepreneurs create businesses, human social organizations that use wealth (or resources generally) to do something. The successful ones do something that can sustain the business itself, so those are the ones that stick around. But beyond keeping the business itself going, what the business does can be anything. It doesn't have to be creating new wealth, or making the world a better place. It can just be funneling wealth to its owner.

Kaarlo is saying that the kinds of entrepreneurship we tend to see is in our world today is the kind that does that. Probably because the only people who have the resources to succeed at it are the kind of people who tend to do that, because everybody else gets fucked the way we run things today and only the most ruthless (as well as lucky, and yes skilled too, but it's got to be all of those, not just the last one) can make it against the stacked odds.

What a narrow minded assertion! Entrepreneurs create wealth, they put ideas into practice, They make the world a better place for everyone. — A Seagull

I think that what you are doing is conflating your opinion of what some entrepreneurs have done, with the motivation of entrepreneurs generally to be entrepreneurial.

some entrepreneurs have done things that some members of society views as progressive or beneficial. sure. my local library was started by Andrew Carnegie who not only paid for it to be built but stuffed it full of books, and this is in a town he never visited in a country he was neither born in nor lived in. some folk would call this philanthropy rather than entrepreneurial and the difference is probably relevant. entrepreneur means person who sets up a business, taking a financial risk that they will return a profit. which quite clearly says that entrepreneurs are motivated by the desire to make money. that some folk think their companies are progressive and beneficial to society is not the point of what they do, but a coincidence.

Entrepreneurs create wealth... — A Seagull

which benefits them and, no one else. how do you benefit from the wealth of Jeff Bezos?

they put ideas into practice — A Seagull

robbing a bank is putting an idea into practice. are you able to explain how this is of benefit to society?

They make the world a better place for everyone. — A Seagull

some entrepreneurs make the world a better place for some of the very small minority of the world population that have access to whatever their business does. Elizabeth Holmes was an entrepreneur. are you able to cite a single person for whom the world was a better place as a result of her actions?


Kaarlo Tuomi.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Entrepreneurship consumes an incredible amount of time. — Adam's Off Ox

Compared to having a 9-5 job?

Entrepreneurship only takes more time as you're setting up the business but not after.. After they get more time

Ludwig Wittgenstein was born into one of the wealthiest families in Europe. He gave all his share of the wealth to his brother, because, being the very intelligent person he was, it didn't take him long to understand that wealth and power doesn't bring happiness or fulfilment.

I think they're several clear examples where money does bring happiness and fulfilment. Like medicine.

So why is it that most people that are interested in philosophy aren't interested in Entrepreneurship? — Gitonga

Is it too simple answer to say that entrepreneurship seems like focusing on income and money, where as philosophy on thinking and knowledge? Yet we shouldn't forget that some philosophers (on the right) think quite highly of entrepreneurs.

I think they're several clear examples where money does bring happiness and fulfilment. Like medicine.

Medical research can be funded by the state. Can wealthy-powerful pharmaceutical companies be trusted to serve the public interest when, for example, they deliberately try to get people addicted to opiate pain killers? Furthermore. medicine in and of itself is not happiness and fulfilment.

Compared to having a 9-5 job?

Entrepreneurship only takes more time as you're setting up the business but not after.. After they get more time — Gitonga

In my experience, entrepreneurs who continue to own successful businesses also continue to spend 50, 60, 70+ hours a week nurturing their business.

Unsubstantiated premise, naive view of entrepreneurship and your ideas about what a philosopher is cannot be characterised as "what philosophers claim".

Can't help but want to label this as a good and productive thread. Even though some concepts, unbeknownst to the purveyor, can have insidious qualities.

If you "enjoy" something, does it not make sense to ensure you have ample time and resources to do so? Absolutely. But that's not what philosophy is about. It's about experience, perception, "viewing things from all angles" especially the most common and even at times the most undesirable and from there rationalizing and so and so forth new or forgotten avenues of thought one can use in life. Usually with the goal of benefiting a society, people, or perhaps even yourself.

Does philosophy make money? If you're a highly paid professor at a top university, it sure will. Or an author with an interesting and original enough premise. Or just the go-to guy who always has something intrinsically useful, beneficial, or at least interesting to say, will get you ahead in life. On a cynical hand, some may say something along the lines of if the doctor is too good the hospital will close. You'd want to hope most don't think like that but like it or not the logic is there. Many applications that philosophy has, sciences particularly theoretical fields, counselors, therapists, business analytics, trends, there's hardly a field that doesn't have at least a tangential use for philosophy.

As far as the entrepreneurship part goes, one view is that the logical man seldom gambles. He can. And may make a fortune. But it's a risk. Granted the more planning and fail-safe-esque procedures and mechanisms you can employ reduce it. But some just don't live life like that.

You have no idea what you're talking about. — Brett

one way to think about it is to consider the following:

if entrepreneurship is good for everyone, and entrepreneurs have increased since the invention of the internet with dotcom millionaires and online trading and ad revenue for clicking on websites and hundreds of new opportunities that never existed before so that we now have more billionaires than have ever previously existed, then how come wealth inequality has increased during the same period of time?


Kaarlo Tuomi

which benefits them and, no one else. — Kaarlo Tuomi

Who built the house you live in, who made the coffee you drink in the morning after you put on your pants that someone made, who opened the cafe where you had your breakfast, who transported the food across country, who produced the food, who made the bed you slept in, the table you sat at, the shoes you walked?

Not entrepreneurs, but people whose surplus value the entrepreneurs siphoned up.

Not entrepreneurs, but people whose surplus value the entrepreneurs siphoned up. — Pfhorrest

Maybe there’s confusion here about what an entrepreneur is.

Someone who starts a business venture, which typically in our capitalist society operate for the benefit of the entrepreneurs and other investors, with any benefit to the customers or employees seen as an unfortunately necessary cost that only impedes that core motivation.

So why aren’t the examples in my post entrepreneurs?

Those are the employees of the entrepreneurs, not the entrepreneurs themselves.

The person that opened a cafe, the person that opened a factory to make shoes, the person who bought trucks to begin a transport business, the person who bought a farm and grew oranges? They aren’t employees.

with any benefit to the customers or employees seen as an unfortunately necessary cost that only impedes that core motivation. — Pfhorrest

So the customer is an impediment. Where do you imagine the profits come from? The customer doesn’t go in the cost margin, they go in the income margin.

The person that opened a cafe, the person that opened a factory to make shoes, the person who bought trucks to begin a transport business, the person who bought a farm and grew oranges? They aren’t employees. — Brett

They also aren't actually doing any of the work you listed, they just own the businesses that employ the people who did the work.

So the customer is an impediment. Where do you imagine the profits come from? The customer doesn’t go in the cost margin, they go in the income margin. — Brett

The production of the products or services that the customer trades money for -- the good done for the customers, by the employees -- is a cost. The money the customers trade for that is income. Income minus costs is profit -- for the owners, not the people who actually do the work.

This is econ 101 stuff here.