The people who call philosophy stupid are the people who haven't put down the time to understand what philosophy is about. — darthbarracuda

Not necessarily! Perhaps someone has spent a life time studying it and concluded that it, or at least 99% of it, IS stupid.

That is the trouble with philosophy, it is so hard to show that it is NOT stupid!

Not necessarily! Perhaps someone has spent a life time studying it and concluded that it, or at least 99% of it, IS stupid. — A Seagull

No, those who have spent a lifetime studying philosophy do not call it stupid. They may see all previous attempts as wrong or misguided, like Kant. But certainly they do not call "philosophy" stupid.

No, those who have spent a lifetime studying philosophy do not call it stupid. They may see all previous attempts as wrong or misguided, like Kant. But certainly they do not call "philosophy" stupid. — darthbarracuda

I've been studying it for over 45 years now, and again, I think that a lot of it is stupid. There are a lot of stupid arguments within it, many of which are very well-regarded and well-accepted, there's a lot of stupid reasoning from philosophers, a lot of stupid beliefs, etc. For a long time I wouldn't have called it stupid, but because (a) I cared about fitting in with the culture and being "taken seriously" by it, with some inkling that maybe I'd pursue something of a career in it at some point, and (b) my perspective/feeling that a lot of it is, and a lot of philosophers are quite stupid, including a lot of the big figures in the field, has increased over the years.

It's probably fair to say that this is a fortiori because my belief that a lot of people are quite stupid in general has only increased over the years, and that view certainly hasn't been helped by interacting with people on the Internet. We simply wind up with a lot of stupid people who happen to know a lot about philosophy, or the sciences, or whatever subject they're interested in and have learned so that they're well-entrenched in the status quo for their niche. If only that could make them not so stupid.

What would be a picture of someone who isn't stupid? Or a society that wasn't stupid?

For one, it would involve not thinking that it would be easily summarized in "a picture."

Why?

Because thinking that it's easily summarized in "a picture" is stupid.

Can you explain, or am I too stupid for your sacred response?

What's to explain? It's very straightforward.

I've been studying it for over 45 years now, and again, I think that a lot of it is stupid. — Terrapin Station

Some philosophy is bad and stupid. Not all philosophy.

Otherwise this just becomes a cherry-pick.

You can't see the answer here?

Some philosophy is bad and stupid. Not all philosophy. — darthbarracuda

I agree with that. It's just that "some" is "a lot" in my view.

Most bad philosophy is tossed out sooner or later. Only the good stuff gets put in the textbooks.

By what principle?

LOL . . . that's not at all my view.

By it actually making sense, at least somewhat, and being historically important.

So historical importance makes it important? Or making sense makes it historically important (based on what exactly)? Or what?

Because your identity and culture is historical and it's important to learn how this came about.

Some people (acquaintances, relatives, friends) just blurt out something like, "that's stupid", or "Philosophy is stupid", or "a degree in Philosophy is useless." — anonymous66

They're correct. After thousands of years of philosophy, philosophers are still unable to determine whether they're dreaming or not, whether there's an external world, whether other minds exist, whether human beings have free will, whether the sun will rise tomorrow (problem of induction), whether their cognitive faculties are reliable, etc. Philosophy is a failure of a discipline. To me, the failure of philosophy represents the absurdity of putting one's trust in the unaided human intellect. Boy, am I glad I got a degree in engineering!

I think philosophy has value, though not as an end in itself, as most philosophers seem to treat it as, but they're absolutely correct that a degree in philosophy is useless. Getting that isn't useful for learning about philosophy, which can be done without going to college. So the only legitimate usefulness it could have is that it helps one to find suitable employment, but it spectacularly fails at that, as do the other humanities.

Philosophy is a failure of a discipline. To me, the failure of philosophy represents the absurdity of putting one's trust in the unaided human intellect. Boy, am I glad I got a degree in engineering! — lambda

When you build something, do you just get out the hammer and nails and start banging away? Or, as an engineer, do you think about it first? Engineering is a deliberate process – or at least it should be – if it is good engineering. Philosophy is the exact same dynamic. Where do you think mathematics came from? What is the function of mathematics? We use math to calculate things on a basic level - arithmetically. Very useful for grocery shopping. How about if we want to send a rocket to the moon? Now we are using a higher level of math – to predict – estimate – probability. We do the same thing in philosophy – we cogitate for predictability – we estimate the probability – and so on. Mathematics was born from philosophy – the first science. All science relies on philosophy – including engineering to this very day.

I would beat them and pound them senseless but regret it later while I lay awake at night staring at the ceiling.

Do that.

After thousands of years of philosophy, philosophers are still unable to determine whether they're dreaming or not, whether there's an external world, whether other minds exist, whether human beings have free will, whether the sun will rise tomorrow (problem of induction), whether their cognitive faculties are reliable, etc. — lambda

Isn't it the case that no human has figured out the answers to these questions? Why not label humanity itself as a failure because of these unanswered questions?

Isn't it the case that no human has figured out the answers to these questions? Why not label humanity itself as a failure because of these unanswered questions? — anonymous66

You haven't figured out whether or not you're dreaming? Case in point.

I'd respond the best way, with the most greatest quote of all time, from the beginning of the symposium. "There was a time when I was running about the world, fancying myself to be well employed, but I was really a most wretched thing, no better than you are now."

If that doesn't endear them to you immediately, I don't know what will.

I actually don't go so far as to think a dislike of philosophy is a reflection of an ability to reason -- just that the usual expressions against philosophy are themselves not very well thought out. They may very well know how to reason about other subjects, but simply saying philosophy is useless and leaving it at that is a clear indication to me that the speaker hasn't given much thought to the matter.

As for reasoned refutations of philosophy -- I like to read them. But if that's a person's ending point, my thinking goes back to art and science (in a similar way as before) -- when practitioners are dissatisfied with a discipline, they change the way they do it. And new and cool and innovative art, science, and philosophy springs from such dissatisfaction. So maybe the person is doing it wrong (for them, in a relativized way)?

How would you respond? — anonymous66

You don't. Why would you? Didn't they make it clear they have no interest in this subject?

You don't. Why would you? Didn't they make it clear they have no interest in this subject? — Noblosh

They're interested enough to give their opinion on it. It could be an interesting conversation. They might even change their mind. If someone said that philosophy - or anything for that matter - is stupid, then I think that it'd be quite natural to respond by asking them why and/or sharing your own opinion in return.

When you don't know anything about something then you give someone else's opinion.

Their opinions are worthless and they know it. What they basically mean is: "Don't bother me with your philosophy nonsense!". So he's not going to realize anything by trying to have a conversation with them on this topic, except maybe some casual chit-chat but I don't think that's what he hopes for.