• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

What is the value of philosophy?

Corporate Philosopher - interesting. My own thoughts are that the capitalism should never be the measure of value. As I stated above education is an end in itself, not a means. We might ask why no corporate historians, anthropologists, botanists, English literature specialists, Classicists, theologians etc.

That said the skills acquired in engaging with these subjects are highly marketable. I know that in the YK at least graduates in the above subjects are more highly sought after than those with 'new' degrees in Marketing, Media studies etc.

The quaternary sector of an economy is vitally important. Though the immediate benefit of postgraduate medicine might seem obvious, the paltry ammount of funding for the arts and humanities ensures the didactic continuity in the quaternary sector, subjects like philosophy are ends in themselves, they enrich our society through culture, and to me culture is just as valuable as corporate value.

And as a byproduct there are numerous successful companies that do have the equivalent of an in-house philosopher, ensuring work/life balance, business ethics, charitable functions etc.

If you want the perfect example of a company run by philosophers, consider the Marxist nature of silicon valley start-ups http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/15/opinion/main1320641.shtml, or how philosophy of mind is bringing new and original insight into the nature of consciousness, or how Newton and Leibniz's arguments on relative or absolute space inform current cosmology.

But ultimately philosophy speaks archytypical truths,..Socrates was humble enough to state that the only thing he knew for certain, was that he knew nothing, and therein lies the power of the lovers of Sophia.
 
there exists a 'master of business ethics' postgraduate degree though. i assume they would not have created it if there is no demand for these. they might be consulted by companies setting up or wishing to improve from time to time.

also, a lot of professors write very accessible books intended for a general audience, about multiculturality or (bio)ethics or whatever relevant topic for common people. ("im a practioning catholic i wish to look into the moral status of artificial insemination in the light of human dignity" they are also frequently involved in thinktanks or boards set up to review and correct state public policy. all of these things require a cultivated sensitivity and precision in these matters, as opposed to the bland 'common sense'. 'common sense' is actually reinvented and adjusted every day, so to speak, by these things. and for a lot of different people, common sense means wholly different things, and so we see different common senses tied to different groups of people. sometimes (not in the least when there are conflicts) they need their common sense explained to them. contrary to what you seem to believe, these things have to be done as justly as possible, and this refinement is cultivated by the pencil sharpener that is academia.
 
Last edited:
It was my understanding that people with degrees in philosophy often end up with thriving, highly practical careers, especially in jobs where a high caliber of critical thinking or persuasive argument is selected for. My medical school class has a couple of former philosophy majors, and I've known a few others who've taken the skills they've learned in academic philosophy and applied them to rather astounding work in business and the arts too.

On an anthropological level, I think of academic philosophers as Keepers of the Fire, in essence. It's not that every professional move they make is directly tied to a measurable amount of societal productivity, as is the case with many jobs. Their job involves keeping a certain tradition alive, so that it can be drawn upon, as needed, by people who play other roles in society, including many who are much more practically minded.

I'd categorize practitioners of traditional crafts (such as those that the British government dubs knights, or the Japanese government dubs 'Living National Treasures') under this same Keepers of the Fire category. They keep alive traditions that are not useful anymore on a day to day basis, but at times come in REAL handy, and have been such great guiding beacons at times throughout the ages, that society would be amiss to let them die out. I'd also place scholars of dead languages in this category.

Heuristic, what you seem to be aiming at is, Who ought to pay for these keepers of the fire to do what they do, which in turn hinges on the question of how can their work be monetarily quantified. This is actually a question that professional philosophers could probably come up with some very interesting answers to. But as long as there are forces afoot in society which feel that academic philosophy is a net waste of money (fairly common), I doubt any would dare broach the subject, for fear that they, or someone they debate with, may rationalize away their own livelihood!

As much as I'm a fan of grassroots or street philosophy (look where I am now!), I really do think dangling academic prestige and a comfortable living wage in front of a certain group of philosophers, really can, via competitive pressure, produce a caliber of logical inquiry that's hard to match in amateurs. Notice I'm not saying we need a LOT of professional philosophers. Nor am I suggesting that professional philosophers necessarily deserve high salaries, high prestige, and inordinate amounts of media time. But I have no problem with universities, including public ones, continuing to nurture this discipline. Replace the word 'philosophy' with 'dance' in this paragraph, for a good analogy.
 
"I would not know what the spirit of a philosopher might wish more to be than a good dancer." --Friedrich Nietzsche
 
Warning: dumb oversights and redundancies as I was too lazy to read everything...

Okay...breakin' it down, what is philosophy?

I take it to be inquiry concerned with the oft overlooked underpinnings and formal qualities of abstractions (and their relations) pertinent to different areas of curiosity. For knowledge, epistemology;
for the character of being/the universe, ontology; and
for pursuit of 'the good' as a self in society, political and ethical philosophy...and so on.

Don't most everyone concern themselves with this, at least to some degree? Aren't we all lay philosophers? I also think that to the extent that we don't, we invoke implicit philosophies to undergird more concrete pursuits of inquiry.

Now the question of what phil's value might be...well, what are we trying to do with it? I think that captivating people's interests should be sufficient. At least it is for me. But limited cases where philosophy in-forms, clarifies, or discounts other more 'practical' sets of knowledge appear from time to time. One example is Lakeoff and Johnson, whose model of conceptualization actually speaks to fairly recent studies in neurology, even pointing to novel neural circuits to look for (and which collaborating cog sci people found).

So is academic philosophy useful? Well, almost never, particularly without interdisciplinary collaboration. Well, undergraduate philosophy instruction does help open some people to new ideas and/or methods of critical reasoning.

I'd really like to see more interdisciplinary and academic-practical collaborations, so that explicit philosophizing could hold value for more.

(i had a related thread, "Is Philosophy Dead"...wonder if it's archived)
ebola
 
First, props to the asking of this question. An inquiry into the value of philosophy is generally itself a philosophical question, and a pregnant question that leads us directly into questions about the nature of value (e.g., what is most important in life?) which are philosophical questions. So part of the practical value of philosophy is to be able to carry on discussions like this. Bonus if you enjoy such discussions (guilty!). This is taking up the philosophical question.

Second, as other people have pointed out, there are big questions that share a sort of axiomatic symmetry with "what is the value of philosophy?". For example: "What is the value of fiction, art, or music?"; "What is the value of games or sport?"; "What is the value of religion or spirituality?"; "What is the value of science and mathematics?", "what is the value of family or friends?". Answering these sorts of questions will likely require some measure of philosophy.

Third, philosophy is an enormous field of human practice - academic philosophy is only one part. There is a philosophical question in even delimiting the practice of philosophy: what makes Lao Tze, Timothy Williamson, Hypatia, Karl Marx, a bluelighter, and G.W. Hegel all philosophers? This is the problem of defining philosophy (another philosophical problem).

Fourth, the basic questions of who we are, what our situation is, and what we should do about it are perennial. Philosophy makes sure we keep asking those questions - they will never be completely settled for all time since philosophy is both a social and a personal practice - hopefully, each new individual and each new generation will receive the questions, reflect upon them, and teach the next bunch to ask them. This is philosophy as a mode of renewing self-examination.

Fifth, philosophers can do work in any academic discipline. Or rather, every (academic) discipline needs philosophers. I'm thinking of all of 'em: science, humanities, business, armed forces, government, medical/clinical, material (engineering), and legal disciplines. Every discipline has foundational concepts and practices and every (academic) discipline needs folks reflecting on its theories, values, assumptions, and other foundational-type concepts. Why do you think they call it a PhD? This is the case for philosophy as part of all "higher" education.

Sixth, the study of philosophy teaches people how to reason, to question critically, to think for themselves, and to express themselves clearly (or at least it aims at such). These should be widespread social and intellectual skills, like arithmetic or literacy. Oh! if only people (in the US) learned logic, ethics, and critical thinking along with mathematics, science, literature, and social studies! Just and true democracy (if its possible) only words with ethical and engaged critical thinkers, I think. This is the case for the value of philosophical skills across the curriculum, in politics, and in everyday life.

Seventh (last one), philosophy is itself a cultural character. If we lost our philosophical history, I don't think we would recognize ourselves afterward. Philosophy defines in many ways the spirit of a time and we wrestle with the questions anew each generation. But through the historical aspect of the discipline (history of ideas), we maintain our ties to our cultural ancestors over millenia. This is the value of philosophers as producers (or reproducers) of cultural resources (Keepers of the Flame!).

And a couple notes:
1) Academia is as much a part of the real world just as much as any other part of the real world is.
2) Have you heard of x-phi (experimental philosophy)? Check that one out - its a new form of philosophy that is combined with empirical research. Very interesting.
3) Again, props on an excellent question!

That is all.
 
Last edited:
somweg said:
Second, as other people have pointed out, there are big questions that share a sort of axiomatic symmetry with "what is the value of philosophy?". For example: "What is the value of fiction, art, or music?"; "What is the value of games or sport?"; "What is the value of religion or spirituality?"; "What is the value of science and mathematics?", "what is the value of family or friends?". Answering these sorts of questions will likely require some measure of philosophy.
Click to expand...

Yes, but are they best answered by those devoted completely to philosophy? I would ask a mathematician about the value of math, and if he pointed me to the fields of science or finance, I would go and talk to people in that field. But I likely wouldn't ask someone in a philosophy department.

somweg said:
Third, philosophy is an enormous field of human practice - academic philosophy is only one part. There is a philosophical question in even delimiting the practice of philosophy: what makes Lao Tze, Timothy Williamson, Hypatia, Karl Marx, a bluelighter, and G.W. Hegel all philosophers? This is the problem of defining philosophy (another philosophical problem).
Click to expand...

This I agree with.

somweg said:
Fourth, the basic questions of who we are, what our situation is, and what we should do about it are perennial. Philosophy makes sure we keep asking those questions - they will never be completely settled for all time since philosophy is both a social and a personal practice - hopefully, each new individual and each new generation will receive the questions, reflect upon them, and teach the next bunch to ask them. This is philosophy as a mode of renewing self-examination.
Click to expand...

These are important questions, however much of academic philosophy is not at all concerned with answering them. To the extent that philosophers are, their answers are frequently so disconnected with substantive conversations that they are worthless to anyone not participating in their particular discourse.

somweg said:
Fifth, philosophers can do work in any academic discipline. Or rather, every (academic) discipline needs philosophers. I'm thinking of all of 'em: science, humanities, business, armed forces, government, medical/clinical, material (engineering), and legal disciplines. Every discipline has foundational concepts and practices and every (academic) discipline needs folks reflecting on its theories, values, assumptions, and other foundational-type concepts. Why do you think they call it a PhD? This is the case for philosophy as part of all "higher" education.
Click to expand...

Can you name the last business that hired a philosopher? Or the last law firm?

somweg said:
Sixth, the study of philosophy teaches people how to reason, to question critically, to think for themselves, and to express themselves clearly (or at least it aims at such). These should be widespread social and intellectual skills, like arithmetic or literacy. Oh! if only people (in the US) learned logic, ethics, and critical thinking along with mathematics, science, literature, and social studies! Just and true democracy (if its possible) only words with ethical and engaged critical thinkers, I think. This is the case for the value of philosophical skills across the curriculum, in politics, and in everyday life.
Click to expand...

Well, critical thinking isn't unique to philosophy though. One can teach critical thinking by teaching any discipline that has some measure of intellectual argument.

somweg said:
Seventh (last one), philosophy is itself a cultural character. If we lost our philosophical history, I don't think we would recognize ourselves afterward. Philosophy defines in many ways the spirit of a time and we wrestle with the questions anew each generation. But through the historical aspect of the discipline (history of ideas), we maintain our ties to our cultural ancestors over millenia. This is the value of philosophers as producers (or reproducers) of cultural resources (Keepers of the Flame!).
Click to expand...

Well, but again, one can have a history of ideas without having much of academic philosophy. Also, the thinkers that really reflect the values of the time are rarely those of academic philosophy, and are certainly not ONLY those of academic philosophy.

somweg said:
And a couple notes:
1) Academia is as much a part of the real world just as much as any other part of the real world is.
Click to expand...

Yes. So is the Klingon language as invented by Trekkies. When I say that there is frequently a disconnect between what is discussed and studied in academia, and what is of practical importance to anyone outside academia (or even that academic field), I don't mean to say that academia doesn't exist. I simply mean that the importance of some of it is dubious--much like the Klingon language.

somweg said:
2) Have you heard of x-phi (experimental philosophy)? Check that one out - its a new form of philosophy that is combined with empirical research. Very interesting.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
what is the value of life?
is there any value at all?
what is the true value of money?
maybe money and resources are not valuable at all?
maybe everything is meaningless and nothing is as it seems, and if there is not point to anything then can't we make our own point?
who is anybody to say something is a waste of resources, each to his own
 
I think that the original question need be clarified for useful commentary (the numerous well-thought posts in the thread reflect how people have done so implicitly in answering). This is bracketing aside the issue of coming to a shared definition of key concepts in such a question.

Is the question, what is the value of the activity of 'philosophizing'?
Or is it, what is the value of philosophy as a separate discipline?

The second question opens up key related inquiries:

What is the value of role-specialists in philosophy to 'non-philosophical' pursuits?

And then, what grounds the 'value' of types of role-specializations in general? How is philosophy unique as a type of role-specialization? (I believe this key, lest we assume a priori the 'value' of non-philosophical pursuits but not philosophy).

Does philosophy exhibit pitfalls distinct (in either quality or magnitude) from other specialized disciplines? Why?

(I'm going to hang back and soak up others' answers, likely more insightful than my typical stand-bys.)

Also, here's some prior related speculation:
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?t=186285

ebola
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top