7 Answers

  1. First of all, the fact that philosophical knowledge, and with it knowledge, are aimed at knowing the essence of the known (i.e., the subject — person) and are also more complete knowledge, since they are philosophical. After all, philosophy is precisely aimed at the knowledge of the whole (world).

    Moreover, this philosophical knowledge mainly forms consciousness and worldviews, and they (in turn) are able to determine, based on their rationalistic essence (and nature), and the appropriate attitude, both to the whole individual and to the world.

    Therefore, this philosophical knowledge, if it is sufficiently complete and in the system, i.e. true, then it allows you to make an adequate, that is, harmonious, relationship with everything that a person has to relate or relate to. And thus, as philosophers think, it finds the desired unity with the world, which, undoubtedly, is harmony, good.

    In short, they believe that mastering real philosophy is an introduction to the philosophical knowledge and at the same time the wisdom that shows (including) how a person should act in a particular life situation, what goals to set, etc.

    The German philosopher Fichte wholeheartedly expresses support, as he writes, in (those) “recent efforts to raise philosophy to the level of science”, which “is necessary and appropriate for various reasons”. After all, such knowledge equips a person (and a philosopher): “… He must know this at least in order not to commit injustice… in order not to give false advice to those who trust him and keep them from all that for neglecting which they may pay severely in the future.”

  2. I think that by and large philosophy is harmful, because it is perceived by many people as the Truth, when in fact it is a subject consisting of many different forms of knowledge of the world, each of which is essentially a distorted perception of reality. Philosophy is the product of the human mind and human fabrications in an attempt to describe being. The main harm of philosophy is the worship and emphasis on the human mind, and it is very, very biased and limited. One of the most obvious and eloquent proofs of what I am talking about is the division of philosophical schools into many directions that contradict each other :





    Actor-network theory








    Pure Land Buddhism






    Vulgar materialism







    Child psychoanalysis

    Dialogic personalism



    Natural science materialism



    Immanent philosophy



    Integral approach




    Historical materialism

    History of Communist teachings


    Cambridge Neoplatonists

    Classical liberalism

    Colchis Academy



    Constructivism (philosophy)

    Continental Philosophy


    Martinus Cosmology


    Critical theory

    Critical rationalism

    Critical Realism (philosophy)




    Lviv-Warsaw School







    Ming jia

    The Young Hegelians

    Moscow School of Philosophy and Mathematics


    Naive realism


    Naturalism (philosophy)





    Neorealism (philosophy)





    Objectivism (Ayn Rand)

    The Occult

    Oxford School

    Oxford Calculators











    Pluralism (philosophy)

    Polish Messianism





    Primordial Tradition


    Progressivism in the United States

    The psychic apparatus




    Rationalism (philosophy)

    Realism (philosophy)

    Religious skepticism



    Salamanca School


    System-structural organization of the material world




    Social constructionism

    Speculative realism

    Spiritualism (philosophy)











    Moderate realism




    Philosophy of everyday language

    Philosophical Psychology


    Chartres School

    Scottish School of Common Sense




    Economic freedom

    Economic liberalism







    Men whose wisdom has captured this world,

    In which he saw the lights of knowledge,

    No road found out of this dark night,

    Posueslovili and sank into sleep.


  3. It would be possible to answer this question quite banally — philosophy was born as a cognition and study of nature, later science stood out from it, and science gave us all the devices that make our life convenient.

    But I'd like to talk about something else entirely. I'll start by emphasizing the word “benefit”. When the demands of value, utility, and profit are made to philosophy, it looks somewhat strange, despite the fact that the ability of any good or thing to satisfy human needs, material or psychological, was first understood, of course, by philosophers. For example, Jeremy Bentham considered increasing utility to be the guiding psychological principle of people's behavior in their desire to avoid suffering and increase pleasure.

    However, starting to think is a sure way to increase your suffering. Everyday pragmatism is more likely to lead us to stereotypical, stereotyped behavior than to try to comprehend a certain phenomenon and fully take responsibility for our actions. This is understood or felt by people who are “afraid” of philosophy, as well as by philosophers themselves.

    The Minister of Public Education Shirinsky-Shikhmatov in 1849 uttered the famous phrase “The benefits of philosophy are not proven, but the harm from it is possible”, and then excluded philosophy from the number of subjects taught in Russian universities.

    When young people asked Alexander Pyatigorsky to become an apprentice, he considered it his duty to warn about the dangers. After all, you live somehow, Pyatigorsky said, so why do you need it? After all, it will only get worse… The worst part is to start thinking now. Not tomorrow afternoon, not the day after, when you've finished your business, but right now, right away, so are you ready for that? But even if you are ready, if you have already chosen philosophizing, then there is no way back to normal life. And if you try to go back, you will not find life, but something that is much lower, worse than life, and it will be the death of you who made such a choice.

    Nevertheless, in the mass consciousness, philosophy is somehow allowed to exist. Let this incomprehensible, containing some dark meanings, but still something important, is present somewhere on the periphery of life, full of high-quality consumption and pleasure, and let some gloomy marginal people ask ridiculous questions and answer them themselves. This tacit public opinion allows free thinking to be preserved even in the conditions of a rigid ideological monopoly.

    Unfortunately, thinking is rarely free, it often takes the form of persuasion, takes a rigid position, which becomes intolerant, aggressive, and literally orthodox. Common sense requires philosophy to be “scientific” and build a holistic picture of the world to explain everything in the world. Hegel perfectly formulated the answer to this demand: “Philosophy … It is directly opposed to reason, and thus, to an even greater extent, to common sense, which is understood as the limitation of the human race to place and time. In relation to common sense, the world of philosophy in itself and for itself is a world inside out.”

    I agree with the most radical interpretation of the usefulness of philosophy: it does nothing but harm everyday life. However, among the many functions of free thinking and the love of wisdom, there is one that makes philosophy an absolutely exceptional tool for a person's self-awareness. Are we biological mechanisms with a pre-determined program, or do we have free will? Depending on the answer to this question, we will consider a person as a means or an end, justify or reject violence, and in general-to be people or not to realize such a possibility during our life's journey. Thinking is not the only way to realize your free will, but it is the only way to realize the importance of this problem. Philosophy is kind to people — no matter how much it separates itself from everyday life, it recognizes for each person the possibility of being free. This is somewhat akin to the Christian concept of salvation — any sinner can repent and be forgiven a moment before death. So with thinking, you can start thinking freely and thereby become a person at the last second of your life. But this is absolutely not in a hurry, life is full of joys, pleasures and intense work to increase the usefulness of everything that surrounds us.

  4. The fact that they are directly related to your life, to its duration, happiness, success.

    From Ayn Rand's speech to graduates of the West Point Military Academy. New York, March 6, 1974.�

    Most people live their lives trying to avoid the three questions that lie-consciously or unconsciously-at the heart of every thought, every feeling, and every action: where am I? – how do I know that?” – what should I do?”

    When people are old enough to understand these questions, they assume that they know the answers to them. Where am I? Well, let's say in New York. How do I know that? This is self-evident. What should I do? Here people are not so sure, but the answer is usually the same: what everyone does. The only problem is that… they are not very active, not very confident, not very happy, and from time to time experience unreasonable fear and vague feelings of guilt that cannot be explained and cannot be eliminated.

    They don't know that their problem comes from three unanswered questions, and that the only science that can answer them is philosophy.�

    Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of being, man, and the relationship between man and being

    Are the things you see around you real, or is it just an illusion? Do they exist independently of the observer, or are they created by the observer?

    The nature of your actions – and your aspirations – will depend on which of the two possible answers you end up accepting for yourself. This is metaphysics.�

    Is the human brain capable of achieving certainty, or is it doomed to perpetual doubt?

    Your level of self – confidence – and your success in life-will depend on which of the two possible answers you accept. This is epistemology.

    These two fields – metaphysics and epistemology-form the theoretical foundation of philosophy. The third section – ethics-can be considered as its technology. Ethics is not related to everything that exists, it is related only to a person, but is related to all aspects of his life: character, actions, values, his attitude to everything that exists. Ethics, i.e., morality, defines our code of values, which in turn determines our life choices and our actions, which in turn determine the course of our lives.

    Is man a rational being, capable of dealing with reality, or is he a hopeless blind man, unfit for life, a sliver in the flow of the universe?

    Are successes and joys available to a person, or is he doomed to live with eternal failures and disgust for life?

    After answering these questions, you can move on to the ethics questions.:

    What is evil and what is good for a person? And why?

    What is the main thing in life – the desire for joy or escape from suffering?

    What are we going to achieve in life – self-realization or self-destruction?

    Should a person strive for their own personal goals or should they put the interests of others above their own?

    Should a person strive for happiness or self-sacrifice?

    Do I need to talk about the consequences of each of the two possible answers? You can see these effects everywhere, in and around you.

    If you are interested, I advise you to read the entire speech, it can be found on the Internet.

  5. In my opinion, there are philosophical knowledge that nurtures a pessimist in you and makes you a notorious cynic who considers life meaningless and treats people misanthropically-this is, for example, Sartre, Camus, Schopenhauer. After reading Sartre's existential novel “Nausea”, I was disgusted with everything, the world seemed so gray and meaningless, I felt like a louse.

    But there are philosophers who, on the contrary, make you a “superman” by awakening the power in you. Nietzsche and Jack London made me a strong, unbroken individualist, awakening in me an unbreakable tenacity and perseverance.�

    Depression, emptiness, depression, and an existential vacuum arise from the lack of meaning in life, and most philosophers help us find the meaning of life.

    And finally, I want to share a quote from Nietzsche, which at one time greatly shocked and helped me: “If there is a why, then you can endure any how.”

  6. I wanted to answer simply. When we have some knowledge about the world and the nature of things, it seems to us that everyone thinks so and has always thought so.

    If you study philosophy, you begin to understand that this is not so. This is very useful, because it leads to the idea that not all your understanding is obvious, and there are other opinions that have the same right to life.

    This leads to a decrease in all sorts of chauvinism, radicalism and aggression. What is not the use?

  7. If philosophy is understood as the practice of reasoning, which is based on the realization that you can always make mistakes in everything, anyone and everyone can make mistakes, then the study of this kind of philosophy will lead us to very interesting conclusions. For example, to the theory of potentiality.

Leave a Reply