Maybe.

It's no more stupid than art, sports, music, or brewing your own beer.

I'm an engineer. I got a degree in civil engineering. When I got out of school, it was automatic. I immediately got a job and have worked 30 years. I like my job. I get paid well. I have a good retirement plan and insurance. I needed that structure. I am not strongly self-motivated.

My neighbor's son got a degree in philosophy from one of those tootie-fruity northern New England liberal arts schools. When he graduated, he immediately went to work for a large construction company as a construction manager. He's very successful.

Then there are my three children. One graduated with a degree in political science, one dropped out of college after four years, and one flunked out after one year. Two are farmers and one is a bartender. They are all very good at what they do, but they will never have much money unless they change things up. They are fearless and are following an internal voice.

Which are you? Do you need structure to succeed? Are you fearless?

I hear you – it is advantageous to be practical with one’s life. Many philosophers are not practical. However, many are like your neighbor’s son who are successful in the real world and the world of ideas. Ideally we want both – right? There is an old saying – there are those who can do – there are those who can think – there are those who can do neither – and a few who can do both.

Which are you? Do you need structure to succeed? Are you fearless? — T Clark

Just heard a short interview of Peter Singer by the BBC. The interviewer asked him whether pursuing a field that could have made him a lot more money might have been a better choice. Singer responded that by being a philosopher, he is able to get his ideas out in the world and influence people.

The context of the discussion was effective altruism, where you calculate what does the most good for your contribution. If Singer had gotten a job on Wall Street, he would have had more money to give to charity, but he wouldn't have been in the same position to promote the idea behind being an effective altruist.

The context of the discussion was effective altruism, where you calculate what does the most good for your contribution. If Singer had gotten a job on Wall Street, he would have had more money to give to charity, but he wouldn't have been in the same position to promote the idea behind being an effective altruist. — Marchesk

One of the things consistently brought up by the EA community is the importance of avoiding burn-out. Even if being a top-notch lawyer or engineer or banker would make you a ton of money, if you hate doing it you won't last very long. It's better to pursue a job that pays well enough that you can donate some to charity, that is also a job you enjoy so you can continue to donate to charity.

Probably one of the things about philosophy that motivates some people to chastise it as stupid is how nothing seems to be set-in-stone. Now of course this is, in my opinion, one of the greatest assets of philosophy, and it's also just untrue that other disciplines are not the same. But people want facts - and a philosophy department does not provide "facts" all too often unless it's historical. In philosophy, there is almost universal disagreement on key issues and this can be interpreted as a failure of philosophy, when in fact it's simply evidence of the difficulty of these questions.

The next step people might take in their criticism is to not criticize philosophy, per se, but criticize those who practice it. They claim that they have some kind of deficient character or personality that allows them to study something as useless and boring as philosophy, not like those "other folk" who study the "important" stuff like science and maths. This is simply a personal attack and an affirmation of the status quo.

That being said, however, I do believe science should be more integrated into the philosophy departments (and not necessarily vice-versa). Philosophers need to be knowledgeable about science, but scientists do not necessarily need to be knowledgeable about philosophy (it's more like it's optional, or perhaps a one-semester class). Most importantly philosophers need to be influenced by the scientific culture, not to make philosophy "scientistic" but to make scientific philosophy. Both scientism and anti-science perspectives in philosophy come from an inadequate conception of science itself.

In general, though, I would really like to see a general culture in philosophy end, that of isolation. This comes in many forms. One form is the isolation from the sciences, where things are studying away from any empirical information that may actually be relevant to the topic at hand. Certain accounts of dualism in the philosophy of mind, for example, really only are self-coherent, they aren't really defensible in the big picture.

Then there's the almost clique-like nature of philosophical "schools", federations of thinkers with a common tongue and a common hero figure. You're either in the school or you're not, and if you're not then those part of it can walk all over you with their verbose terminology and esoteric vocabulary. It's a power game. And once again this leads to isolation. Part of the problem then is that it is hard to get people interested in this stuff. I still haven't read anything by Hegel and I don't know when I will or if I even will, I just don't have the motivation to because I don't really understand why Hegel is so important to begin with. From my own perspective, it is as if Hegelians (and other schools as well) don't want newcomers, but then they complain how Hegel could be used to solve many issues in contemporary analytic philosophy or science. Like if you think this is true, then it's up to you to spread the good news of Hegelianism, you can't just expect people to voluntarily spend several years studying something that they aren't sure is helpful or not.

There is also the self-imposed isolation of those who pair philosophy with religion. Historically speaking, philosophy was a very valuable tool for religions. It was philosophy in the service of religion, usually theological of sorts. Theology is just the philosophy that maintained its relation to religion during and after the chaotic splits of the Enlightenment. Religion gives philosophy a "big" purpose - to demonstrate the existence of God, to show the right way to live, to comprehend the sacrament or whatever. It's really important and to be a philosopher tied to religion, or just a theologian, makes you part of a tradition of sorts. But it's also very isolationist and therefore basically irrelevant to those who aren't "in" the school. And then those who are part of the group blame those who aren't for not reading their material. Which is entirely hypocritical as they probably don't read the material of other religious groups. It's really their fault for not communicating properly, but they make it seem like it's your fault and that you're guilty for not reading so-and-so's dissertation of the existence of the divine or whatever or misinterpreted what the esoteric circle was saying.

This leads into another isolationist tactic employed, that philosophy somehow has a "monopoly" on the "Big Questions". Philosophers study "the Big Questions" that pervade all existence. Wow.

One last issue related to this is one that I have seen here on the forums and elsewhere. It could be that philosophy attracts this sort of personality, but it seems to be a common-ish conception of philosophy as being life-changing and aristocratic. That by studying philosophy, you become a more "virtuous" person, or just straight up better than other people, is something I've found to be a common sentiment that is also found it other disciplines as well. I've found this sentiment in myself at times, chiefly characterized by a disdain towards newcomers and a preference for philosophy to continue to be "for the few". If philosophy is only studied by a small portion of the population, it automatically gives those who study it a sense of "special-ness" - they know (?) more than other people. They know (?) certain things that others don't, it's special knowledge that cannot be easily explained to others, assuming there is a desire to teach anything at all. Philosophy, then, becomes some kind of way to separate yourself from the "common rabble" and see yourself as superior to them. Heidegger at least tried to start from common experience and especially the countryside folk, but he still ended up using technical jargon and terminology which ultimately made his thinking isolationist.

A consequence of this sort of special snowflake attitude is that those who have it get super protective and anal retentive about their discipline. They want to be special, but if nobody cares about their discipline, they take this as an insult and go on to pine for the solidarity of the mountains or the woods or whatever. Which is just childish in my opinion.

You can see this general snobbish, isolationist attitude in the very language of those who have it. They'll often say "in philosophy..." or "in science" with the intention that this discipline is something you have to get into. It's a verbal "stop sign" - stop!, we don't want your kind here. Stay outside. This is a symptom of an inferiority complex.

Thanks very much for your very insightful look into the way current "philosophy" may be unintentionally shooting itself in the foot. Agree that philosophical endeavors are best when in harmony with science, while avoiding evangelical scientism, as you imply. The ivory tower may have an ocean view, but it is a dead end. One wonders if Philosophy has been guided away by the powers-that-be from the more provocative, questioning pursuits that Socrates excelled at, to safer academic topics. Or so one could wonder when in full conspiracy-theory mode. ;)

That being said, however, I do believe science should be more integrated into the philosophy departments (and not necessarily vice-versa). Philosophers need to be knowledgeable about science, but scientists do not necessarily need to be knowledgeable about philosophy (it's more like it's optional, or perhaps a one-semester class). — darthbarracuda

What justification would you have for this belief?

That being said, however, I do believe science should be more integrated into the philosophy departments (and not necessarily vice-versa). Philosophers need to be knowledgeable about science, but scientists do not necessarily need to be knowledgeable about philosophy (it's more like it's optional, or perhaps a one-semester class). — darthbarracuda

I disagree philosophy is beneficial for everyone - actually obligatory.

In science you must not talk before you know. In art you must not talk before you do. In literature you must not talk before you think. — John Ruskin, The Eagle's Nest, 1872.

One might add: "In philosophy you must not talk before you think about the nature of talking, or knowing, or doing, or thinking."

By "stupid" do they mean 'impractical', or 'no use'? Is undertaking a degree in philosophy going to be useful to you? If so, do you believe it will be the degree itself, or the pursuit of it that will be useful? I recently dropped out of an undergraduate degree majoring in philosophy that I have been pursuing for the last 8 years while still running my landscape design and contracting business, practicing painting and drawing and writing and learning music (I love too many things).

I dropped out because I had not undertaken the study in order to get a qualification, but to enhance my study of philosophy (which I had already been doing for many years prior). My areas of interest within philosophy have narrowed so much over that time that trying to find time to read texts that I am not that interested in, and write the essays that I have little enthusiasm for writing, has come increasingly to consume too much of the precious time I need to devote to the list of texts I want to study as well as my other pursuits.

I dropped out with an 80% average, two academic prizes on my record, and a $9000 HECS debt, and I have no regrets because learning the discipline of study and writing essays certainly helped me. The piece of paper at the end would only be useful if you would be able to use it to qualify for a profession you really wanted to practice. — John

I can relate. I wouldn't mind just reading and writing about what I want to read and write about, sans degree.

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

Good point.

@Sapientia

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.

By making an argument against philosophy, aren't they, in fact, doing philosophy? If they take the time to create a reasoned argument as a response, I might just ask, "if you don't like philosophy, then why are you doing it?"

It seems to me that, in a very real sense, everyone does philosophy (if philosophy is using reason and argumentation)... it's just that some are better at it (have more skill, more experience, etc.) than others.

One of the possible reasons that people dislike (or think they dislike...) philosophy, is because they think along these lines:
"I know I have a pretty good idea of how the world works, how I define words, etc... until someone actually challenges my assumptions about those things... then I start to doubt what I thought I knew... and having my assumptions challenged and doubting what I thought I knew is uncomfortable."

I suppose another reason people have a negative attitude toward philosophy is that some people find it difficult to imagine someone else making a living as a philosopher.

But, I've found it difficult to imagine making a living as say, a salesman, or a writer, or any number of occupations, and yet, some people do make a good living pursuing those occupations (and I'm happy that those occupations exist).

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

It's not the job of humanity as a whole to find answers to those questions. But it is the job of philosophers to get satisfactory answers to those questions, which they have failed to do. Philosophy is a failure. Time to find a new discipline.

"I know I have a pretty good idea of how the world works, how I define words, etc... until someone actually challenges my assumptions about those things... then I start to doubt what I thought I knew... and having my assumptions challenged and doubting what I thought I knew is uncomfortable." — anonymous66

I'd say most academic philosophers have the exact same mindset.

By making an argument against philosophy, aren't they, in fact, doing philosophy? If they take the time to create a reasoned argument as a response, I might just ask, "if you don't like philosophy, then why are you doing it?"

It seems to me that, in a very real sense, everyone does philosophy (if philosophy is using reason and argumentation)... it's just that some are better at it (have more skill, more experience, etc.) than others. — anonymous66

Yes, I agree.

I'd say most academic philosophers have the exact same mindset.

I prefer to be around people who are willing to acknowledge and question their own assumptions... people who are actively looking for good counter-arguments and counter-examples.... people who welcome the challenge that comes from looking at things in ways they haven't themselves considered.

It's not the job of humanity as a whole to find answers to those questions. But it is the job of philosophers to get satisfactory answers to those questions, which they have failed to do. Philosophy is a failure. Time to find a new discipline.

What I see here is an argument that takes this form: "I've decided that it's the job of philosophers to do X... They haven't done X, therefore philosophy is a failure."

But, what if someone else were to argue: "I've decided that it's the job of doctors to cure all diseases.. they have failed to cure all diseases, therefore the medical health field is a failure. Time for all doctors to find a new profession." Would you accept that argument?

It's relatively easy to make frivolous arguments of this sort, isn't it? Someone could easily argue: I've decided that it is the job of profession X to do Y. X has failed to do Y, therefore X is a failure.

Doctors have actually made progress in finding cures to particular diseases; whereas philosophers have made no progress whatever in refuting skepticism, and never will. Like I said, it's time to find a new discipline.

One of the possible reasons that people dislike (or think they dislike...) philosophy, is because they think along these lines:
"I know I have a pretty good idea of how the world works, how I define words, etc... until someone actually challenges my assumptions about those things... then I start to doubt what I thought I knew... and having my assumptions challenged and doubting what I thought I knew is uncomfortable." — anonymous66

Yes. Or, the annoyance could be at the tendency of those who do philosophy to lose sight of common sense and overlook conventional wisdom, evidenced by, for example, asking ill-considered questions or feigning ignorance. Maybe it's not so much the challenge, but the sense that one has been there, done that, and come full circle. The challenge posed might reflect an earlier stage in the thinking process which one can relate to, but has ultimately eschewed as misguided and succumbing to the kind of problems associated with philosophy that have been mentioned in this discussion.

There's this typical approach to philosophy which has quite a lot in common with the ways in which children think and behave, and that's not necessarily a good thing or something to be proud of. It's one thing to be open-minded, but another thing to lack a good mental filter to separate the wheat from the chaff, and sometimes I think that the two get confused.

I've been talking about pursuing a degree in Philosophy. I don't think I've ever heard a positive response. Some people (acquaintances, relatives, friends) just blurt out something like, "that's stupid", or "Philosophy is stupid", or "a degree in Philosophy is useless."

How would you respond? — anonymous66

How would I respond? I would be honest.

Look at what the author says here about majoring in Anthropology:


"It’s official. As of 2012, Kiplinger declared the anthropology major as the worst major for your career. Forbes follows suit: Anthropology is the worst major.

We’re #1!

From Florida Governor Scott’s we don’t need anthropologists to Frank Bruni singling out anthropology in the New York Times, I’m tired of playing defense. We’ve worked hard to get to #1.

Anthropology is the worst major for being a corporate tool. If going to college is only measured by the job you will take immediately after college, then please choose one of Kiplinger’s 10 best college majors for a lucrative career or one of Forbes 15 Most Valuable College Majors. Please don’t become an anthropology major!..." (emphasis mine).


Do you see that first part I put in bold? Anthropology has worked hard to become the worst major for getting you a good-paying job and making you a pawn in the capitalist game, darn it! We're proud to be number one!

Every time I read that I laugh.

Be honest. Say, "You are right. A degree in Philosophy will not make me very useful to this capitalist system that does things like destroy the biosphere, destroy indigenous cultures and employ in sweatshops people forced to move to cities, exploit women and children, etc."

As for philosophy's content itself being stupid, again, be honest. Tell them, yes, speculating about being a brain in a vat won't get anybody anywhere in the economic world like, say, working on an AIDS vaccine. Then remind them that that economic world is poised to replace as many as 50% of us workers with artificial intelligence. But AI can't do things like speculate about being a brain in a vat. The latter ability is part of what makes us human. Tell, them, therefore, that if they think that what makes us human is stupid, and they consider themselves to be human, then they are saying that they are stupid.

Probably one of the things about philosophy that motivates some people to chastise it as stupid is how nothing seems to be set-in-stone. Now of course this is, in my opinion, one of the greatest assets of philosophy, and it's also just untrue that other disciplines are not the same. But people want facts - and a philosophy department does not provide "facts" all too often unless it's historical. In philosophy, there is almost universal disagreement on key issues and this can be interpreted as a failure of philosophy, when in fact it's simply evidence of the difficulty of these questions. — darthbarracuda

Many people on this forum quote long-dead philosophers as if they were prophets - as if what these long-dead philosophers wrote or said is above criticism (set in stone).

Thank you, well said. And interesting article.

I would say: You may think philosophy is stupid, but at least I'll expand my mind more than you ever could in a single life time. I'll question why things are the way are and gain more knowledge and it will not be useless. Not everyone has to be practical in the sense that they are directly contributing to society. The people who take on degrees such as nursing that directly contribute to society are not better than the people who indirectly help society. Sometimes the people who indirectly help society have a greater impact. "One day my thoughts could go into history and I could completely change everyones perspective of the world." That's pretty significant to me.

Perhaps the best way to start then is to avoid joining a philosophy forum? ;)

Nicely put.

'Philosophy is stupid' is a philosophy of its own. I wouldn't say that it was stupid but perhaps not yet fully thought through. It's more an exam question than an exam answer.

Yes. Or, the annoyance could be at the tendency of those who do philosophy to lose sight of common sense and overlook conventional wisdom, evidenced by, for example, asking ill-considered questions or feigning ignorance. — Sapientia

But questions that ignore common sense and conventional wisdom are not necessarily ill-considered. You can't be philosophical without asking such questions. To those who regard common sense and conventional wisdom as beyond question, philosophy will always appear ill-considered. Note that you cannot decide ahead of time which examples of common sense are questionable and which are not, without, of course, going beyond it.

There's this typical approach to philosophy which has quite a lot in common with the ways in which children think and behave, and that's not necessarily a good thing or something to be proud of. It's one thing to be open-minded, but another thing to lack a good mental filter to separate the wheat from the chaff, and sometimes I think that the two get confused.

It's not necessarily a bad thing or something to be ashamed of either. And separating the wheat from the chaff is an exercise of rationality and good judgment that may not require an anchor in common sense or "grown-up" thinking. On the contrary.

Conventional wisdom has told us that God created Man and the universe, and now tells us that the brain is a computer (at least to me, it seems that among the scientifically but non-philosophically literate this has become something close to common sense, but you could think of other examples). It's surely the job of a philosopher to question such thoughtless prejudices.

What I find stupid about philosophy is what is revealed when a philosopher is asked about some topical social or political issues, whereupon they invariably spout the dullest platitudes. Perhaps the Continentals are less guilty of this, working in more of a self-aware and historically-aware mode than the Anglos. In any case, all it means is that most philosophers are not philosophical enough.