Why Philosophize?

[infectedmushroom]

Why is philosophy important to human beings?

Why is it important to you?

Personally, I see philosophy as an act of intellectual auto-fellatio. There seems to be a grand prize to be won by bending over backward (cognitively speaking) but most of the time the answer is "just out of reach," leaving one sore (in the head) and wondering if "the truth" is even "attainable."

When i'm being less cynical, it's obvious the ways it has shaped my own thinking and thus relation to the world as well as on a macro level the thinking and thus actions of entire societies (including ours, today.)

So, the question remains...why philosophize?

 

[-=SS=-]

Personally, I see philosophy as an act of intellectual auto-fellatio.

Haha It is nice to find someone else who shares that view. Though I would clarify my position and say most of modern, especially academic, philosophy is intellectual masturbation. Philosophy in itself is not that. It's only a modern thing to sit back in an arm chair with a fine brandy and "philosophize". No.. real philosophy does not need to even involve books or intellectual materials.. it is a process of changing ones being.

On that note, everyone is a philosopher. We do it daily.. well, most of us. But the deepest philosophy is searching for the answers to the biggest questions.. Who am I? Where will I go when I die? What is 'god'?

Why philosophize? Well.. "An unexamined life is not worth living". First, Know Thyself. Until you understand who you really are you're just taking wild guesses on what the best course of action is in your life.. you remain helpless to outside influence. I think that is a pretty damn important reason to philosophize.

 

[swilow]

^Good post SS.

Why is philosophy important to human beings?

Why is it important to you?

Personally, I see philosophy as an act of intellectual auto-fellatio. There seems to be a grand prize to be won by bending over backward (cognitively speaking) but most of the time the answer is "just out of reach," leaving one sore (in the head) and wondering if "the truth" is even "attainable."

When i'm being less cynical, it's obvious the ways it has shaped my own thinking and thus relation to the world as well as on a macro level the thinking and thus actions of entire societies (including ours, today.)

So, the question remains...why philosophize?

I tend to think it is an inherent aspect of being human. We analyse everything constantly, including this propensity for analysis. We seem to insitinctively break things down into their constituents, either mathematically or conceptually. I think this has given rise to the unanswerable questions like what happens after we die. Given that we require information for our analytical powers to be made use of, I think its natural that certain concepts can never be truly understood. But through the apparent futility of the search, we might encounter other unexpected truths. It is through a lot of philosphical musings over thousands of years that we have things like human rights. We don't have the answer to the meaning of life, but in seeking it, we've revealed some other truths to help us on our journey. This is not say that these answers are never attainable, just that they currently are and we need to keep seeking. The reason we need to philosophise- knowledge is power. The more you question, the more you learn, and the more you know, the more ethical/positive decisions you can make to benefit future inhabitants of earth. It is unlikely that one individual will ever discover the truth behind everything; but human knowledge is not based on the attributes of individuals components, but the collective sum-total as accrued over time and through increasing population. We all contribute to this well of knowledge, and I think it is vital that we continue.

 

[drug_mentor]

Why is philosophy important to human beings?

Philosophy has been immensely important throughout history, you could make an argument that before the last century or two philosophy was the primary driving force behind human knowledge. It has had an immense influence on politics and the way that liberal societies are structured. Plato's Academy is widely considered to be the first Western University.

Science has been influenced by philosophy in important ways. Skepticism, the problem of induction, and the falsifiability principle all originate from philosophy, these are all very fundamental to the way science is practised today. Aside from these contributions, there is a whole field of philosophy called philosophy of science which is focused on resolving certain issues in scientific disciplines and helping to interpret new discoveries.

Philosophy has been influential in the development of artificial intelligence, and to a lesser extent cognitive science. One of my current lecturers works in philosophy of mind and is part of an organisation which facilitates dialogue between philosophers, cognitive and neuro scientists.

It is also of note that logic is a branch of philosophy, and without logic we wouldn't be having this conversation. Computer programming is based on the principles of formal logic.

This is all off the top of my head, and I am a first year philosophy student who had no interest in philosophy prior to commencing my studies. I am sure if you looked in to it, you could find countless contributions from philosophy which are relevant today.

Why is it important to you?

It is important to me for a lot of reasons, but probably the biggest one is that it opened my eyes to how much I was taking for granted, and how unwilling I was to question certain assumptions and intuitions that I had. It has taught me not to hold on to my beliefs, but to question them, and to be willing to let go of them. Mostly it has taught me that the most important thing is not what you believe, but why you believe it.

Now I grant you these are all things which you don't need to study philosophy to realise, and these are all things which I had previously realised to varying degrees, but it is not until I spent some time studying philosophy that I learned to consistently embrace these ideas.

I also see it as a great self development tool, it forces you to question all of your beliefs and either come up with good reasons for holding them or abandon them. It is excellent for developing your analytic and critical thinking skills.

I also think it has made significant contributions to human understanding and also in making the world a better place. I believe it will continue to do so.

I just plain find it interesting. Of the subjects I study, the material in my philosophy classes is consistently the most engaging. Outside my studies, I find many philosophical areas of inquiry interesting.

Aside from the critical thinking aspect, I also find studying philosophy in some respects to be the study of the history of important ideas. Instead of focusing on events we are focused on the ideas which have shaped us. The ideas you are exposed to in philosophy have strongly influenced what individuals think, believe and how they behave, as well as how society functions at just about every level: morality, religion, politics, law, etc. Personally, I find this a fascinating and often neglected aspect of history.

Personally, I see philosophy as an act of intellectual auto-fellatio. There seems to be a grand prize to be won by bending over backward (cognitively speaking) but most of the time the answer is "just out of reach," leaving one sore (in the head) and wondering if "the truth" is even "attainable."

When i'm being less cynical, it's obvious the ways it has shaped my own thinking and thus relation to the world as well as on a macro level the thinking and thus actions of entire societies (including ours, today.)

So, the question remains...why philosophize?

I would echo SS's post (minus the bashing of academic philosophy part) as reasons why philosophy is both important and unavoidable.

Aside from that, I think it is important to question your beliefs about things, and to actually be able to justify them. An intellectually honest person doesn't hold beliefs based on their gut reaction to something, or because someone told them it was so, they question what reasons there are for and against a position and hold the position which is the most rationally tenable. This is something which is fundamental to philosophy.

Doing philosophy not only has a lot of benefits to the individual, but can have benefits for society as well. I have already touched on a number of positive contributions that philosophy has made to knowledge and society, these benefits would not have been gained if it weren't for the fact there were people out there philosophizing.

In defense of academic philosophy, studying it is a fantastic tool for self-development. I believe that it is the most effective subject for teaching critical thinking skills. Philosophy majors score extremely well in comparison to other majors on tests such as the LSAT, GRE and GMAT, and they have done so consistently from at least the early 90's up til now (older source, more recent source for GRE results, more recent source for LSAT results).

Contrary to the perception that philosophy is a useless major, not only do philosophy majors do extremely well on a broad range of tests, but according to this article philosophy majors consistently earn more throughout their careers than other humanities majors.

Philosophy is not for everyone, but it is not useless, and it sure is not intellectual masturbation. The results speak for themselves, philosophy wouldn't have made the contributions it has, and philosophy students wouldn't be performing as well as they are, if there wasn't a lot of value in doing philosophy.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I've witnessed an enormous amount of intellectual masturbation in the name of philosophy.

And, I'm not talking about forum stuff.
I mean published academic philosophical journal writings.
It's (mostly) a load of wank, IMO.

I really resent the idea that philosophy is reserved for philosophers.
Like religion, I think it's best to treat it as a personal journey.

People become philosophical fundamentalists.
Certain works are treated like gospel.
This is counter-productive.

Existentialism is a (rather miserable) religion.
I'm not convinced Nietzsche knew more about life when he died than any old man.
By all accounts, he wasn't a particularly enlightened person.
He was depressed throughout most of his life.

My Nanna, on the other hand, she's an extremely chill woman.
She seems to have everything worked out, more or less.
There is no judgment in her, no matter what you do.
No trace of anxiety. No trace of depression.
She's calm. Her perspective of life is simple.
She won't try to impress you with words.
But, that doesn't mean she understands any less.

Academic philosophers tend to overthink shit until it falls apart, I think.

You can get lost in theory.
In the end, philosophy pertains to people.
It pertains to the real world.

 

[drug_mentor]

I've witnessed an enormous amount of intellectual masturbation in the name of philosophy.

And, I'm not talking about forum stuff.
I mean published academic philosophical journal writings.
It's (mostly) a load of wank, IMO.

I was under the impression that your exposure to academic philosophy was fairly limited, forgive me if I have that wrong, whilst I wont attempt to deny some philosophy might be wanky (I think you could find examples of this in most academic disciplines though), I question if you have been exposed to enough philosophy to fairly conclude that the entire discipline is mostly a load of wank.

I really resent the idea that philosophy is reserved for philosophers.
Like religion, I think it's best to treat it as a personal journey.

I resent this idea too, I think philosophy should be for everyone, which is why forums like this one are great.

However, I can't help but wonder where this comment is supposed to be directed. In my exposure to philosophy both inside and outside academia, nobody has expressed the view that philosophy is reserved exclusively for philosophers.

People become philosophical fundamentalists.
Certain works are treated like gospel.
This is counter-productive.

This can be true of absolutely anything. However, my experience in academic philosophy is that disagreement with established works is not only encouraged, it is pretty much mandatory. There is not a single issue where you won't be presented with two (or more) perspectives on, the idea is to identify the main points of contention and either establish who made the better argument, or present your own argument for or against something. Fundamentalism is something which is thoroughly discouraged in academic philosophy and nobody will get good grades by simply agreeing with all of any published philosophy, no matter who wrote it.

Seriously, the number one take away I have gotten from studying philosophy is not to be fundamentalist about anything, to thoroughly question the merit of every single idea/claim/argument/proposition. Of all the things I have studied, philosophy is the most demanding in terms of having to come up with your own ideas and/or arguments.

Existentialism is a (rather miserable) religion.
I'm not convinced Nietzsche knew more about life when he died than any old man.
By all accounts, he wasn't a particularly enlightened person.
He was depressed throughout most of his life.

This reinforces my view your exposure to academic philosophy is very limited. Every time I see you bash philosophy, out comes the Nietzsche hate. Continental philosophy like existentialism and post modernism is a pretty soft target imo, analytic philosophy is a lot more precise and interesting.

You can get lost in theory.
In the end, philosophy pertains to people.
It pertains to the real world.

I agree with this. I did point out a number of contributions academic philosophy has made which have revealed truth about the real world and improved peoples lives, and there are many more examples.

Your opinions are just as valid as mine, but I feel like you are possibly dismissing an entire discipline because of your exposure to a very narrow aspect of it (which imo, is one of the less interesting and more easily criticised aspects), and I just wanted to address that.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I don't want to have a long discussion with you.
Please read this with an open mind.

I question if you have been exposed to enough philosophy to fairly conclude that the entire discipline is mostly a load of wank.

Fairly? This is my opinion. Maybe you haven't spent enough time to fairly say it isn't a bunch of wank?
Or maybe we just have different (both valid) opinions... I don't see why you care so much if people dislike (academic) philosophy.

If you'd like to attempt to invalidate my opinions about academic philosophy by suggesting that I'm ignorant, go right ahead. The reason I refer to Nietzsche, is because he's the classic example (for me) of an over-rated historical academic philosopher. He stands out - to me - as one of the most over-rated historical figures of all time. (And there are a LOT of philosophers on that list.)

...

Academic literature articles are mostly a load of wank too, IMO, if that makes you feel better.

In my exposure to philosophy both inside and outside academia, nobody has expressed the view that philosophy is reserved exclusively for philosophers.

Although nobody explicitly states it, it is implied by how most philosophy students (from my observations) engage with philosophical subject matter... You said repeatedly throughout your last post that I might not know enough about academic philosophy to have a valid opinion. That's just fucking typical.

Re: gospel... although people are encouraged to question "the greats", they remain in a position of idolization. They're still teaching most of the same text books, in a lot of philosophy courses, they did thirty years ago. People are still quoting the same shit. It's boring, IMO.

I did point out a number of contributions academic philosophy has made which have revealed truth about the real world and improved peoples lives, and there are many more examples.

Your opinions are just as valid as mine, but I feel like you are possibly dismissing an entire discipline because of your exposure to a very narrow aspect of it (which imo, is one of the less interesting and more easily criticised aspects), and I just wanted to address that.

I don't think I ever said that philosophy is useless and that nobody should study it.
If that was the case, I wouldn't have studied it at university in the first place.
It is not for me. That's all I'm saying. I think it's a bunch of wank.
Philosophy is something I'd rather study, via life (rather than uni).

I don't see why you feel the need to object so strongly to my opinion.
Like, why does it bother you (at all)?

...

I don't want to discuss this with you further.
I don't feel like we're going to get anywhere.

I don't appreciate being called ignorant.
You have no idea how much I've read.
My ex-wife was into philosophy.
I have two shelves of books.

It's a bit narrow minded to conclude that the only possible way that somebody could not like something is if they haven't been exposed to it (enough). It seems like you're afraid (or something) of accepting the fact that a stranger on the internet genuinely doesn't like what you're studying, which comes across as a bit weird and a bit insecure...

Tell yourself that I'm wrong and ignorant, if that makes you feel better.
But - ironically - you're not applying what you say you've learnt.
You shouldn't make assumptions, to suit your agenda.

You said philosophy makes people test better, in certain ways.
I'm sure it does. It teaches people to argue, to dissect, and to think outside the box.
I'm not discounting an entire field. I never did. I just think it (the subject matter) is a (largely) bunch of wank - relative to other fields.

I used to study film-making.
There were acting classes on the first floor of the building.
The actors would do these stupid exercises in the foyer while I had classes.
You could hear them screaming (vocalization exercises) and jumping up and down (God knows).
And, I'm sure the teachers probably know what they're doing. I'm sure it's helpful to scream.
But, I couldn't help but think that what they were doing was pretty embarrassing.
In the end, it doesn't matter what I think. They're the aspiring actors, not me.

... Are there no fields of study that you don't think much of? ...

The fact is: people find academic philosophy somewhat inaccessible. This is a philosophy forum. In the "how can we improve" thread, numerous intelligent people (including two philosophy moderators) posted that they didn't feel worthy, creating philosophy threads. You are contributing to this, slightly, by telling me that I'm not educated enough to "fairly" make any opinionated statements about academic philosophy... Philosophy belongs to everyone. I mean, I assume you are educated enough (yeah?). What are the prerequisites? How many books do I have to read? How many journal articles? ... ... You're contributing to what you're arguing against.



Fran: I do sell a lot of wank, don't I?

 

[Munchkoala]

[h=1]Why Philosophize?[/h]

To answer questions; to observe; to pursue knowledge; to learn.

 

[drug_mentor]

Fairly? This is my opinion. Maybe you haven't spent enough time to fairly say it isn't a bunch of wank?
Or maybe we just have different (both valid) opinions... I don't see why you care so much if people dislike (academic) philosophy.

If you'd like to attempt to invalidate my opinions about academic philosophy by suggesting that I'm ignorant, go right ahead. The reason I refer to Nietzsche, is because he's the classic example (for me) of an over-rated historical academic philosopher. He stands out - to me - as one of the most over-rated historical figures of all time. (And there are a LOT of philosophers on that list.)

Firstly, I don't conclude philosophy isn't a wank primarily on what I have been exposed to (although it plays a role obviously) so much as the huge amount that has been achieved in the name of philosophy and the fact it has been a serious area of study for over 4,000 years. I think something like this clearly deserves the benefit of the doubt, and it seems a little strange for someone to take a single philosophy unit and from there write off a very broad academic discipline.

Second, I never called you ignorant. I simply pointed out that when I see you talk down about philosophy, you tend to mention a very narrow (and as I already said, easily criticisable) aspect of it. This led me to think your exposure might not be very broad.

Although nobody explicitly states it, it is implied by how most philosophy students (from my observations) engage with philosophical subject matter... You said repeatedly throughout your last post that I might not know enough about academic philosophy to have a valid opinion. That's just fucking typical.

This is twisting my words a little. I said taking a unit of continental philosophy might not be enough to fairly write off a whole discipline, which has accomplished a lot over the last 4,000 years, as a wank. There is a difference between saying this and that you can't have a valid opinion on philosophy.

I don't see why you feel the need to object so strongly to my opinion.
Like, why does it bother you (at all)?

It's a bit narrow minded to conclude that the only possible way that somebody could not like something is if they haven't been exposed to it (enough). It seems like you're afraid (or something) of accepting the fact that a stranger on the internet genuinely doesn't like what you're studying, which comes across as a bit weird and a bit insecure...

To be fair, I hardly objected strongly to your opinion. I pointed out that it seemed like your criticisms of philosophy were always leveled at a very narrow part of philosophy, and I said where your experience differed from my own.

I don't care one way or the other whether you like philosophy, honestly, but I think it is counterproductive to have respected members of philosophy boards bashing academic philosophy for nothing. There is enough stigma attached to philosophy, I am just trying to provide a balanced perspective because I don't want people to be discouraged from studying something which I have found very rewarding, that is all.

... Are there no fields of study that you don't think much of? ...

No. There are some fields that I don't find particularly interesting, but I wouldn't write them off as not being worthwhile on that fact alone. Even if I really didn't like say, anthropology (I am picking this at random, I have nothing against it), I would not take it upon myself to go on an anthropology forum and tell people why academic anthropology was a big wank.

The fact is: people find academic philosophy somewhat inaccessible. This is a philosophy forum. In the "how can we improve" thread, numerous intelligent people (including two philosophy moderators) posted that they didn't feel worthy, creating philosophy threads. You are contributing to this, slightly, by telling me that I'm not educated enough to "fairly" make any opinionated statements about academic philosophy... Philosophy belongs to everyone. I mean, I assume you are educated enough (yeah?). What are the prerequisites? How many books do I have to read? How many journal articles? ... ... You're contributing to what you're arguing against.

You are twisting my words again, I didn't say you weren't educated enough to make opinionated statements about academic philosophy, I said you might not have a broad enough exposure to fairly shit on the entire, very broad, discipline. There is a big difference.

I don't think I am anywhere near educated enough to shit on 4,000 years of contributions to society either, you seem to be missing the spirit of what I am saying entirely. I think philosophy should be very accessible, but given how broad of an area of study it is, I don't think you can decide you don't like one (or even several) branch(es) of philosophy and make negative inferences about all the other branches.

I don't want to argue with you man, this isn't a thread about why we disagree on academic philosophy. It is a thread which someone made asking people to share their positive experiences/opinions about philosophy, and that is all I want to do.

I respect your opinion and in my previous post I acknowledged that it was every bit as valid as my own, I feel like I have adequately explained why I addressed your previous post in the manner I did and it had nothing to do with calling you ignorant or saying you weren't allowed opinions on philosophy.

 

[ForEverAfter]

NSFW:

You never explicitly said ignorant or invalid. It was implied.

it seems a little strange for someone to take a single philosophy unit and from there write off a very broad academic discipline.

I've taken multiple units, at different universities.
I've also did a literature/philosophy unit.
And I've read 50(+) philosophy texts.

I don't know what "it seems strange" means.
You keep hinting that I'm wrong, while adding your little disclaimers that I'm not.
You're still doing what you're denying. You're invalidating my opinion, by implying I'm ignorant.
It's that old "Well, you just don't understand" argument.

You seem intent on pigeon holing me as someone who doesn't know enough about academic philosophy to rightly/fairly/whatever have a valid opinion.

This is twisting my words a little.

No, it isn't. What the fuck?
You just repeated it.

To be fair, I hardly objected strongly to your opinion.

To be fair?
There's that word again.

From my perspective - over the course of three or four threads and half a dozen private messages - you have objected strongly.
That's why I used the word "strongly". You might disagree. But what you think isn't fair and what I think isn't unfair.

I don't care one way or the other whether you like philosophy, honestly, but I think it is counterproductive to have respected members of philosophy boards bashing academic philosophy for nothing. There is enough stigma attached to philosophy, I am just trying to provide a balanced perspective because I don't want people to be discouraged from studying something which I have found very rewarding, that is all.

I resent the implication - again! - that I have no valid reasons for my opinions.
You're repeating it, again! I'm bashing academic philosophy for nothing, am I?

You're outnumbered.
Three people on this thread have described it (academic philosophy) as intellectual masturbation.
Maybe you're right. Maybe we're all saying it for nothing, and none of us know what we're talking about.

There are some fields that I don't find particularly interesting, but I wouldn't write them off as not being worthwhile on that fact alone.

You tell me I'm twisting your words.
When did I say it wasn't worthwhile for you?
It wasn't worthwhile for me. That's all I'm saying.

I would not take it upon myself to go on an anthropology forum and tell people why academic anthropology was a big wank.

Like I said, three people have made the same statement.
I'm not just going around shitting on academic philosophy.
The subject matter of the thread is: why philosophize?
So I - and others - answered, honestly.

You are twisting my words again, I didn't say you weren't educated enough to make opinionated statements about academic philosophy, I said you might not have a broad enough exposure to fairly shit on the entire, very broad, discipline.

Like I said, you have no idea what I've read... You'd just like to think (it seems) that I'm ignorant, because - for some reason - it's utterly inconceivable to you that somebody else might not see value in something that you see value in.

^NSFW = Semantic bullshit.

 

[Foreigner]

Why philosophize...

Well, as someone who has a natural inclination for it, I would say it's because I have always wanted to know more about the nature of reality and the meaning behind my own existence. Those questions were there from a very early age.

The questions planted the seeds for a process that became non-mind, eventually. For this reason I don't believe that philosophy is ultimately useless. Yes, you must release the semantics in order to realize the truth, but as one of many systems, philosophy can lead you there if your intentions are earnest.

I took academic philosophy courses in university and dropped them all in the first week. My sense was that they were so incredibly mind focused that it was mind for mind's sake, and was making no real effort to get at the truth. This is probably the auto-fellatio the OP is referring to. I find it hard to stay interested in anything on the philosophical level unless it's pointing towards a resonant truth.

I don't believe philosophy is necessary to discover the truth, but if you have a busy or highly intelligent mind, it certainly helps.

 

[infectedmushroom]

I think my metaphor of intellectual auto-fellatio has been misappropriated slightly. I meant it to refer to philosophy as a whole discipline, not academic philosophy in particular. The way philosophy attempts to seek truth through (virtually exclusively) the intellect, is what makes it a wank to me. We philosophize because we want to find truth(s,) but much philosophy becomes wrapped up in the brain rather than in the real world. There needs to be a firm grasp of both, IMO, as truth is as much an experience or feeling as an intellectual conclusion - at best we can only catch glimpses of the truth, really.

Many of the greatest philosophers ever had backgrounds in academic philosophy - i.e. they studied philosophy at university, before branching off and developing the ideas which made them famous. I'd argue academic philosophy is actually essential and integral in the continued production of a higher overall quality of philosophical inquiry than would be produced without it.

 

[drug_mentor]

I think my metaphor of intellectual auto-fellatio has been misappropriated slightly. I meant it to refer to philosophy as a whole discipline, not academic philosophy in particular. The way philosophy attempts to seek truth through (virtually exclusively) the intellect, is what makes it a wank to me. We philosophize because we want to find truth(s,) but much philosophy becomes wrapped up in the brain rather than in the real world. There needs to be a firm grasp of both, IMO, as truth is as much an experience or feeling as an intellectual conclusion - at best we can only catch glimpses of the truth, really.

Philosophy makes use of empirical evidence, what it doesn't do is go looking for more empirical evidence. If it did this, then it would either have to do so in a very controlled and careful manner, at which point it would become difficult to distinguish from science, or it could apply a lesser standard of empirical evidence and risk making inferences from misinterpreted data.

I don't think many people are out there advocating philosophy over science these days, and as far as measurable truths go philosophy has rightly been replaced by science as the predominant avenue through which we seek to answer these questions. However, some questions aren't measurable by today's scientific knowledge (some probably never will be) but it is still worthwhile to think about these questions. Using logic and reason we can often draw important conclusions, even if there are many things which we can't formulate precise answers to.

Two areas worth mentioning are morality and politics, these are non scientific issues which philosophy has influenced immensely. As willow pointed out, we wouldn't have human rights if it was not for philosophy, human rights are a philosophical concept.

Philosophy has resulted in the development of science. In many cases scientists do not have the same critical thinking or analytic skills that philosophers do, and for this reason philosophers can be helpful to scientists by formulating hypotheses or by helping to interpret research results.

Aside from everything else, even if one wanted to conclude that philosophy was no good for figuring out things about the world, it is still very good for self development. In my initial post in this thread I cited plenty of evidence to show that students who major in philosophy tend to perform better on a broad range of tests than people who study other disciplines.

Many of the greatest philosophers ever had backgrounds in academic philosophy - i.e. they studied philosophy at university, before branching off and developing the ideas which made them famous. I'd argue academic philosophy is actually essential and integral in the continued production of a higher overall quality of philosophical inquiry than would be produced without it.

I agree with you 100% here and I think it is a very important point. Regardless of what you think of philosophy, it is impossible to deny that many great contributions to knowledge and society have come from philosophy, and the overwhelming majority of these great contributions were made by people trained in philosophy.

Not every problem academic philosophy deals with is a "real world" problem, but by thinking about more abstract problems and exercising the mind philosophers become better equipped to deal with real world problems.

 

[neurotic]

surely questions and analyses have its uses, but very often it is a product of, as others have said, mental masturbation. ime, the mind has this drive to play with itself, for no particular reason - not going anywhere, just going.

besides pointless questioning (which is kinda harmless, perhaps just poorly spent mental energy), there are also a few attempts to bend reason as to prove something. this can be obvious or subtle. i see that a lot too.

personally, philosophy played a big role in my life. i always had a very active mind and i used to identify with my thoughts a lot, to a point where that state of philosophizing about everything felt like my home, and i only felt bonded with people after i had a long philosophical talk with them. nowadays i find that reason is too malleable (and also, not necessary nor suficient) to satisfy our human emotional needs though, so i don't really bother with it (at least consciously), and when my mind starts to do it by itself, i let it and don't take it very seriously.