Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Philosophy asks the question of what is good, whether it is worth striving for it, and whether the useful is really useful and the harmful is harmful. If the very concept of benefit is called into question, it is doubtful to talk about the benefits of such an activity in itself. However, the statement of another figure (the Minister of Education)is widely known: “The benefits of philosophy are not proven, but the harm from it is possible.” If there is harm, there may be benefit (and vice versa), since it is only a matter of time. Philosophy can be very dangerous.
Therefore, it can be very useful.
Steven Weisberg is good. Very good. He is right that philosophy is useless and even dangerous when one begins to be fanatically “guided”by it, so to speak.
The benefit of the philosophy is that it should be like a starting engine for the MTZ-80 tractor. It should wake up, stir up the Big Engine, start it up in man, in science. Only this is its use.
That is why it is conditionally useless, since all the main work is done not by it as a “pusher”, but by a Large Engine. Or even more precisely, not even a Big Engine, but just “what is” and just “those who are”. And, mind you, they do it with incredible beauty! In other words, in addition to” what “and” who “in any act of existence, there is also” what ” — the method, quality and style of work.
Weisberg's open-mindedness and open-mindedness betray the philosophic quality of his mind. What does “philosophical” mean here? And the fact that in his chapter he is not “guided” by philosophy, but becomes it himself. Here, through his mouth, philosophy itself is just talking with might and main.
True philosophy is adogmatic, it is free. Hmm, that's what he said, right? But what I have said can easily be made a dogma. And on the other hand, sometimes many philosophical dogmas become literally the embodiment of freedom.
“The futility of philosophy” is the dogma of Nobel laureate Steven Weisberg. A normal, good, very practical and quite philosophical dogma. However, I am sure that he himself does not fully adhere to his own dogma. And who of the creative thinkers adheres to them? And in the end, you can only adhere to the dogma by transcending the dogma itself, going beyond its limits, touching the lattice stakes of the dogma's fences with your hands, famously jumping over them if necessary. Actually, the dogma itself is needed for this very purpose — the content can be realized by touching its borders, its form, identifying it step by step, finding holes and forbidden zones. Philosophy is needed precisely in order to see the futility of philosophy at some point. But this is a very intimate act. Just talking about the uselessness of philosophy is not something you can comprehend. This is what a person learns firsthand, living and experiencing their own, as Stephen Weisberg puts it, “biases”.
The truth is broader than our “theories”, “models” — it is richer, more interesting and more real. A map of the area, especially if it is well detailed and marked, is very good for moving around the real area. But it is not necessary to absolutize it, this model map, because reality can also have undocumented areas. That's all. That's just what I think Weisberg wanted to say, unfortunately, he's already dead.
THE USE of philosophy-comes down to Knowledge, Ability (to apply), Understanding-the basic theoretical and practical principles and methods of optimal behavior and thinking of a person and society.
A colossal ugly distortion of philosophy in practice – acute concrete-practical insufficiency and excessive abstract-theoretical redundancy of philosophy and ethics.
The result of this outrage is mass uncultured practical behavior and thinking-in all countries and times.
The reason for this is the lack of full-fledged practical philosophical education and upbringing in schools and universities.
Philosophy answered the main question: who is a person and what is the meaning of his life. The world we live in is not created by God, but by people. A person exists, regardless of whether he was born or not. There is no need to search for the meaning of a person's life.
Strange question. In my second year, I studied philosophy, which for me personally was the foundation for such disciplines as political science, psychology, history of world literature and cultural studies.
For all humanities, it is the queen of science, as for technical disciplines, mathematics.