Is Philosophy Still Relevant?

[Calisu]

*Points out the thread title* Assuming this was posted without a hint of irony?

[Charellia]

Philosophy is the driving force behind law, politics and religion, not to mention being based on the important skills or logic and critical thinking. As long as any of those things are relevant philosophy will be relevant.

[Infected Mushroom]

Philosophy is the driving force behind law, politics and religion, not to mention being based on the important skills or logic and critical thinking. As long as any of those things are relevant philosophy will be relevant.

people are perfectly able to decide right and wrong based on their conscience and have reasonable opinions on politics without a formal degree in philosophy though

as for the people who argue it is the ''foundation'' of science, medicine, education etc... at some point thousands of years ago, it may have been.

But now? Each of these fields is self-perpetuating and each of them is actually creating real material and economic/technological progress on the ground IN ADDITION to philosophy's purported benefit of making you think ''critically.'' Philosophy is no longer relevant because science, political science, psychology etc have long supplanted philosophy's alleged function for hundreds of years...

this is why no one should need to study it formally.

[Infected Mushroom]

Philosophy can be an insightful class I've heard, and isn't going to go away due to anyone's opinions unless a college can't make any money off the class.

unfortunately this is a major factor.

Universities should also be reformed so they are less about making money and actually providing students with jobs and practical skills...

Philosophy does not do that. Engineers learn to think critically and to build things. Doctors learn to think critically and to heal people. Lawyers learn to think critically and to maneuver around the law to help clients.

Philosophers only learn how to think... about extremely abstract things that are no longer relevant to modern society; and if they are relevant, everyone already knows them with or without the philosophy degree because they are ingrained assumptions.

[Hladgos]

Philosophy can be an insightful class I've heard, and isn't going to go away due to anyone's opinions unless a college can't make any money off the class.

unfortunately this is a major factor.

Universities should also be reformed so they are less about making money and actually providing students with jobs and practical skills...

Philosophy does not do that. Engineers learn to think critically and to build things. Doctors learn to think critically and to heal people. Lawyers learn to think critically and to maneuver around the law to help clients.

Philosophers only learn how to think... about extremely abstract things that are no longer relevant to modern society; and if they are relevant, everyone already knows them with or without the philosophy degree because they are ingrained assumptions.

Jobs will be irrelevant in a century or so. Machines are going to replace almost every job you can think of in the future. Not that understanding a skill now isn't irrelevant, but why should we limit people's choices at a university? If you're going to college you're old enough to decide what you want to take, and if you've got some spare time for a fun and insightful class, why take that opportunity away from people?
If noone wants to take a class that is unnessisary (feck that word) then it will dissapear on its own.

[Infected Mushroom]

unfortunately this is a major factor.

Universities should also be reformed so they are less about making money and actually providing students with jobs and practical skills...

Philosophy does not do that. Engineers learn to think critically and to build things. Doctors learn to think critically and to heal people. Lawyers learn to think critically and to maneuver around the law to help clients.

Philosophers only learn how to think... about extremely abstract things that are no longer relevant to modern society; and if they are relevant, everyone already knows them with or without the philosophy degree because they are ingrained assumptions.

Jobs will be irrelevant in a century or so. Machines are going to replace almost every job you can think of in the future. Not that understanding a skill now isn't irrelevant, but why should we limit people's choices at a university? If you're going to college you're old enough to decide what you want to take, and if you've got some spare time for a fun and insightful class, why take that opportunity away from people?
If noone wants to take a class that is unnessisary (feck that word) then it will dissapear on its own.

i believe the government should not be wasting public funds. If the money going to universities is going to create classes, I would rather the exclusive focus is on the most relevant and practical fields...

[Hladgos]

Jobs will be irrelevant in a century or so. Machines are going to replace almost every job you can think of in the future. Not that understanding a skill now isn't irrelevant, but why should we limit people's choices at a university? If you're going to college you're old enough to decide what you want to take, and if you've got some spare time for a fun and insightful class, why take that opportunity away from people?
If noone wants to take a class that is unnessisary (feck that word) then it will dissapear on its own.

i believe the government should not be wasting public funds. If the money going to universities is going to create classes, I would rather the exclusive focus is on the most relevant and practical fields...

What else are we going to spend the money on? I'd rather the government spent money on education that let the schools and teachers decide what is best, because after all, who went to school to understand how to teach? Besides, wouldn't you like to live in a nation with a population educated both for their jobs and a general knowledge of the world as well as some more insightful things like logic and philosophy? We live in an age where we have the resources to become more enlightened human beings, why not take the steps there?

[Infected Mushroom]

i believe the government should not be wasting public funds. If the money going to universities is going to create classes, I would rather the exclusive focus is on the most relevant and practical fields...

What else are we going to spend the money on? I'd rather the government spent money on education that let the schools and teachers decide what is best, because after all, who went to school to understand how to teach? Besides, wouldn't you like to live in a nation with a population educated both for their jobs and a general knowledge of the world as well as some more insightful things like logic and philosophy? We live in an age where we have the resources to become more enlightened human beings, why not take the steps there?

I don't think you need a degree in philosophy to be truly enlightened though.

I would rather the funding went towards getting more classes for the most cutting edge fields... (ex engineering, medicine)

[Hladgos]

What else are we going to spend the money on? I'd rather the government spent money on education that let the schools and teachers decide what is best, because after all, who went to school to understand how to teach? Besides, wouldn't you like to live in a nation with a population educated both for their jobs and a general knowledge of the world as well as some more insightful things like logic and philosophy? We live in an age where we have the resources to become more enlightened human beings, why not take the steps there?

I don't think you need a degree in philosophy to be truly enlightened though.

I would rather the funding went towards getting more classes for the most cutting edge fields... (ex engineering, medicine)

You don't need a degree in it, no, but wouldn't it be interesting if a majority of Anerican citizens took a few classes like that? The best solution to almost any problem is an educated populace.

We can't have too many people in those fields, because then there wouldn't be enough employers, and some individuals lack the ability to function in sophisticated job fields like that

[Immoren]

Yes. Science is still very relevant.

[Nephmir]

What else are we going to spend the money on? I'd rather the government spent money on education that let the schools and teachers decide what is best, because after all, who went to school to understand how to teach? Besides, wouldn't you like to live in a nation with a population educated both for their jobs and a general knowledge of the world as well as some more insightful things like logic and philosophy? We live in an age where we have the resources to become more enlightened human beings, why not take the steps there?

I don't think you need a degree in philosophy to be truly enlightened though.

I would rather the funding went towards getting more classes for the most cutting edge fields... (ex engineering, medicine)

This is how things are forgotten in history. People are no longer willing to fund it so they fund something else in its place. People stop learning the old stuff and the fundamentals and discoveries of an entire subject is lost. There is always an advance in philosophy, and just because there's no advance in the way it's taught doesn't mean that we should scrap it. Besides, people will always philosophize on their own level (whether or not one understands that level is irrelevant).

[Infected Mushroom]

Yes. Science is still very relevant.

Philosophy has long ago stopped being a science.

Philosophy as it is currently practiced and studied for the most part (a lack of focus on collecting/analyzing objective data, a lack of controlled experiments and studies, and a lack of falsifiable claims)... can no longer be called a science in my view.

It has long been mis-characterized. Speculation (no matter how abstract) does not a science make.

[Immoren]

Yes. Science is still very relevant.

Philosophy has long ago stopped being a science.

Philosophy as it is currently practiced and studied for the most part (a lack of focus on collecting/analyzing objective data, a lack of controlled experiments and studies, and a lack of falsifiable claims)... can no longer be called a science in my view.

It has long been mis-characterized. Speculation (no matter how abstract) does not a science make.

Science is still Natural Philosophy.

[Norstal]

Philosophy is the driving force behind law, politics and religion, not to mention being based on the important skills or logic and critical thinking. As long as any of those things are relevant philosophy will be relevant.

people are perfectly able to decide right and wrong based on their conscience and have reasonable opinions on politics without a formal degree in philosophy though

as for the people who argue it is the ''foundation'' of science, medicine, education etc... at some point thousands of years ago, it may have been.

But now? Each of these fields is self-perpetuating and each of them is actually creating real material and economic/technological progress on the ground IN ADDITION to philosophy's purported benefit of making you think ''critically.'' Philosophy is no longer relevant because science, political science, psychology etc have long supplanted philosophy's alleged function for hundreds of years...

this is why no one should need to study it formally.

I've already stated the purpose of a variety of topics in philosophy that is used in other fields. Way to ignore me. Perhaps next time I should use 200pt font.

...

A lot of topics in philosophy is used to help in the sciences and engineering. Study in logic and consciousness helps computer science. Study of morals and ethics helps in political science, along with other social sciences like psychology. Study in etymology helps in biology, particularly in naming and such. Aesthetics? Don't want your products to look like crap. Etc et nauseam.

You know what field is pointless? Business, with an exception to accounting. You don't do shit in Business. What you learn there you can learn in every other fields.

Also add linguistic philosophy to that list. Chomsky Normal Form is highly important in Computer Science too.

[Distruzio]

Asks a philosophical question.

[Infected Mushroom]

Should philosophy still be something to be studied in college?

I mean, it doesn't seem terribly useful besides being something some people might chat about in their spare time over tea.

It seems that philosophy is at a dead end anyways. Nowadays it seems to me philosophers just keep thinking of slightly different ways to say the same post-modern stuff (there is no Truth, there is nothing objective). None of it seems very applicable to real life.

There isn't much ''progress'' in philosophy. In other disciplines you can measure progress. For example, in science we invent bigger bombs, more medicines, more communication etc. In history we unearth more about the past, we accumulate objective knowledge so we can better build our world in the future. But in philosophy? What exactly is contributed besides highly abstract things that can't be proven one way or another?

It seems to me that philosophy should no longer be taught in college. People are always welcome to write and sell books about their own personal outlooks on life but I don't understand why we need academics to ''study'' it (how can you ''study'' something that isn't about accumulating objective knowledge or improving technology/actual skills?).

Another thing that vexes me about modern philosophy is how so many of the authors seem intent on frustrating the readers by writing books that are completely incomprehensible. Yes, ''how artistic'' and ''how hip'' is it to demonstrate that there is no Truth by writing a book on the topic that is purposefully incomprehensible and loaded with non-existent words. Any reason it needed to be this bad? I'm sorry but this isn't scholarship to me. Its just quirky, self-conscious publicity-seeking. Unfortunately I feel this is pretty much the norm with much of the modern academia of philosophy. Just pick up a book by Boudrillard or Deleuze and Guattari and you'll see the perfect examples for what I'm talking about. Intentionally over-convoluted, incomprehensible, ''academic'' stuff designed to illustrate a point that can't be proven (there is no Truth).

What do you think? Should philosophy still be taught in college? Do you think philosophy has hit a post-modernist dead end? Is it even
useful?

...

A lot of topics in philosophy is used to help in the sciences and engineering. Study in logic and consciousness helps computer science. Study of morals and ethics helps in political science, along with other social sciences like psychology. Study in etymology helps in biology, particularly in naming and such. Aesthetics? Don't want your products to look like crap. Etc et nauseam.

You know what field is pointless? Business, with an exception to accounting. You don't do shit in Business. What you learn there you can learn in every other fields.

I am sure each of these fields (ex political science which considers morals and ethics, biology which makes use of etymology, aesthetics which is used in marketing etc) have adequate and compartmentalized vehicles for studying what they need for their graduates to do their jobs very well.

We don't need a specialized class of philosophers to do it. And as I've said many times, the fact that philosophers are almost never working off objective data, engaged in objective data collecting, performing controlled experiments and making falsifiable claims pretty much means they can't contribute anything further and should be disqualified as a science.

If you want to be a good psychologist you only need a degree in psych, you don't need to have a degree in philosophy too just to have ''better foundations in ethics and morals''. The same goes with the other parallels you mention. The contributions of philosophy are few and far between and where they exist, each discipline has long absorbed those contributions and created a small compartmentalized self-perpetuating system on its own. For example, with or without the existence of a separate degree on philosophy, there will always be computer majors looking to refine methods of logic since its so central to what they do. You've got these guys in math, chemistry, and physics as well no doubt... There doesn't need to be a specialized philosophy degree.

[Immoren]

We've lot of Philosophers here.

[Couasia]

Is being able to think useful? I would say so.

[Scomagia]

Its present-day relevance is determined by how well it pays my bills.

That's a shit way to look at the world.

[Infected Mushroom]

Is being able to think useful? I would say so.

and people with other types of (more useful, relevant and applicable) degrees DON'T think or don't think its useful to be able to think?

[Couasia]

and people with other types of degrees DON'T think or don't think its useful to be able to think?

Apparently, you don't think it's useful to be able to think.

[Conscentia]

Anyone asking that doesn't know what philosophy is.

[Infected Mushroom]

and people with other types of degrees DON'T think or don't think its useful to be able to think?

Apparently, you don't think it's useful to be able to think.

because I THINK philosophy is no longer relevant?

If I didn't think it was useful for people to be able to think, I would be advocating for the elimination of all education and all human brains.

As I've said, people think quite a bit too in the other disciplines (engineering, law, medicine etc). The difference is, their graduates are in a realistic position to cause material change in the world and contribute to the economy.

[Immoren]

Philosophy pervades our culture to same degree as language, air, alcohol or those nut/raisin mixes served in those little glass bowls.

[Trotskylvania]

Yes. Science is still very relevant.

Philosophy has long ago stopped being a science.

Philosophy as it is currently practiced and studied for the most part (a lack of focus on collecting/analyzing objective data, a lack of controlled experiments and studies, and a lack of falsifiable claims)... can no longer be called a science in my view.

It has long been mis-characterized. Speculation (no matter how abstract) does not a science make.

Yes, it must still be taught and practiced so we don't have barbarities like this running around.

This post of your betrays a deep and abiding ignorance of philosophy and what its role is in the systems of human knowledge. The highest degree in academic fields is called the Ph.d, "doctor of philosophy". It is because philosophy is the master discipline that encompasses all others. That includes all of the sciences. Philosophy should not and cannot be judged by empirical terms because empiricism is one of many available modes of inquiry in the school epistemology: the philosophical branch that deals with how we know what we know.

Demanding a strict adherence to empiricism is stupid. Please, demonstrate how you can run a controlled experiment to test a mathematical theory, or generate ethical theory.