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, of course, does not deal with problems whose solution can bring immediate tangible benefits: build a bridge, cure cancer, or come up with a new business project that will bring mountains of gold (although, according to one legend, the Greek philosopher Thales managed to pull off the latter). Philosophy talks about things of a more general nature, which really seem “detached” from the problems that we clog up our everyday life. But this situation reminds me of an old joke about a man who jumps for a banana hanging from the ceiling, can't get it, and when people watching him try to tell him: “think, man!”, he answers them: “what to think, you need to jump!” Sometimes before jumping, you should first think-maybe your goal is easier to achieve in another, non-obvious way? Even worse, do all the goals you want to achieve really deserve to be achieved? Naturally, when I stop and start thinking about the goal-setting process instead of chasing and achieving my goals, I inevitably start falling behind others who continue to participate in this eternal race. In this sense, philosophy is really “useless”.
This idea is probably best described by Plato in his famous “myth of the cave”: when a philosopher who has escaped from the cave (which symbolizes our everyday world) returns to help those who remain there, the prisoners in the cave, instead of thanking him, attack and kill him, because they think that he came with” corrupted vision ” and also wants to spoil themselves.
In general, it would be easy and understandable if philosophy dealt with some “maximally general” questions, while specific sciences dealt with problems of a more specific nature, as Aristotle, for example, bequeathed to us. But here another problem arises: philosophy cannot give definitive and exhaustive answers to the questions it poses, as we usually expect from science. Almost any philosophical question has at least 4-5 different (including diametrically opposite) answers: is the world knowable? Is there reliable knowledge? What is the nature of consciousness? What is a person? Well, and so on – as many philosophical traditions, there are about the same number of answers to these questions. Here it may be objected that in fact there are some questions that a person must answer independently: otherwise, why is he given reason at all? In this case, the strange “benefit” of philosophy is that by asking the same questions again and again, it brings us back to reflection, reminds us that there is still something to think about, and not to close the problem forever, as already “solved”.
Because if philosophical reasoning is not useless or strange, then it is simply not identified by preconceived thinking as philosophical. You can give a lot of examples of very “vital”, accurate and clear philosophical judgments and texts (in the same Jerzy Lez, Nietzsche, the Strugatsky brothers and many others), but they will answer: “So this is satire/poetry/social fiction, etc.!”, and will remain with their own prejudice to philosophy.
Here it is simply necessary to bear in mind that a degree in philosophy does not make a person a philosopher; on the contrary, philosophical encyclopedias and textbooks would be halved if all non-graduated philosophers were deducted from them.
Because that's how philosophy is used in everyday life. These texts are designed in such a way as to evoke the illusion of such an easy understanding of their meaning that every mindless reader begins to think that “everything is clear”to him.
In Nietzsche's Zarathustra, these readers are little animals: they understand the idea of eternal return so “well” that they walk the streets and sing a song about it. This is a way of not understanding anything, which looks like a constant chatter on this topic to convince everyone around you that you understand everything. These are detached conversations about life with an intelligent look, for which there is no understanding, but there is a desire to appear knowledgeable in subtle matters.
And that's not what philosophy is about, of course. This is a kind of spirit management technology that develops in parallel with technological progress and describes in a very specific manner the spirit of the era in which the thinker lives.
Philosophy is always practical knowledge. It is not designed for the pleasure of showing off their intelligence, and even the Greeks did not do so, although they are credited with doing so because of the general misconceptions about the Greeks.
P.S. I wrote a separate text on this topic.
1) Because most people are far from philosophy. People who are far from any profession usually present it in their own light. Take any profession, it will be the same with it: actor, politician, medic, manager, teacher, marketer, makeup artist, hairdresser.
2) It is also true that philosophers, for the most part, are far from the problems of most people.
3) In each profession, only 15% of professionals work, in philosophy-the same. And it is not surprising that 85% of philosophical texts are rewritten from empty to empty, in an incomprehensible language.
4) There is no generally accepted definition of the word “philosophy” in philosophy, so every philosopher talks about his own philosophy. And it is not surprising that many philosophers do not understand each other, and even less so non-philosophers.
In addition to the obvious (and already given) answers that philosophy is inherently very far from “national economy”, there is another objective reason.
Philosophy, at least in our country, is studied incorrectly.
Like a certain collection of works of “great philosophers”, almost detached from life.
Although in fact it would be nice to study philosophy through practice:
All of today's Philosophy is full of futility and verbiage.
Philosophy has not yet determined its place in developing humanity.
Philosophers do not participate in any way in the processes of determining the state ideology, which leads to the arrival of dubious personalities in the power structures.
Let philosophers try to give lectures among the people. I think they'll throw tomatoes and rotten eggs at them.
Philosophers know no more about Philosophy than the natives of African countries.
Philosophy should be a forward-looking view of developing Humanity.
Without Philosophy, nothing is possible,but even modern Philosophy is a dark spot on the body of all mankind.
I declare with knowledge of the matter and the topic – Philosophy is the main thinking organ for Humanity. Today, Philosophy is in a drugged delirium about its greatness. We urgently need to take drastic measures to cure Philosophy of the nonsense about its greatness.
Philosophy's place is to serve all of humanity, not itself.
Source of knowledge, science “Understanding the Word”.
A philosophical theory is a qualitative, semantic model of a phenomenon or the world order as a whole. This is what we call understanding. And in most cases, we first need to understand at a qualitative level how the phenomenon works, and only then develop its physical model.
Philosophy as a science is a map of the errors of human reasoning, showing the current scientific thought about these errors.
Continuing the thoughts of Aristotle (about organs) and Plato (about the cave), Francis Bacon talked about idols that stand in the way of human knowledge. And he very pointedly states the idea that such idols, which force us to “look at the problem more broadly,” often lead us to fictional worlds and are similar to “theatrical productions.” They are not useful, but only take time to review them.
So the short answer to the question of why philosophy has such an attitude is the number of theatrical productions in the conclusions of most people. Everyone tries to change the map, representing a round square.
Exactly for the same reason, the word “scholasticism” has a negative connotation.
Philosophy,in my opinion, is a cross between poetry and mathematics. But when it leans more towards poetry, it becomes something more vague. And when it lacks a poetic streak, it also becomes boring. A philosopher who does not respect mathematics tries to grow a lush tree without strong roots.
There is an opinion that philosophy mainly tries to answer questions that are not answered by empirical / natural sciences. Such attempts often lead to arguments that are out of touch with life, and therefore useless and strange, which is not surprising. The problem, among other things, is that the lack of empirical data on any issues makes logic the only method of discussing them, and philosophers do not realize that logic does not guarantee the validity of reasoning. Rather the opposite. Natural sciences clearly show that the logical is almost never correct, and real empirical patterns do not have a logical explanation. There is no answer to why wave and particle properties are combined in the quantum world, what is the essence and causes of the interaction of particles and radiation, why the speed of light is constant, etc.Rational scientific analysis naturally stops at questions that cannot be answered by a verifiable answer, and for philosophy this (unfortunately) is in no way an obstacle. Philosophers use logic here, without realizing that it is only a way of syntactically constructing plausible hypotheses that philosophy is not used to and cannot test. Philosophers use some hypotheses to build others, then the next ones, and so on. Such logical judgments are usually incorrect or incomplete, because logic is” linear ” and proceeds only from known facts (and popular misconceptions), and reality is essentially nonlinear and, as a rule, contains unknown sides (otherwise why would it be necessary to study it). The experience of working in the natural sciences, where an experiment breaks 95% of your assumptions about “how things really are” would be useful for such people. But we can't assume that this practice is just the result of some kind of inexperience. The answer to any philosophical question is more socially attractive, more high-profile, more profitable and in demand than admitting ignorance, and it pays well in modern universities. We are taught from childhood that logic is a sign of intelligence, that an educated person should be able to reason, that reasoning is an effective method of the humanities. Although this method immediately fails where it can be verified by facts. Logic serves as a tool in politics and culture, and we are taught at school to write logically coherent texts. Logic plays an exaggeratedly important role in today's very backward and unproductive humanities culture, competing with facts. The ability to easily manipulate the majority opinion in the interests of individuals is a perfect illustration of this fact.
Because most people think “sensibly”, not logically. “Sanity” helps to distinguish tea from coffee, but it is just as useful for understanding the world as a slate pencil for cutting glass. To understand philosophy, you need to think MATERIALLY.
PHILOSOPHY was supposed to be the most important of the sciences, but in fact it became the last of the sciences – this is the opinion of not just people, but Experts on this issue.
The main reason for this is that philisophy has worked for a very long time in very useless abstract and opportunistic-political directions, losing sight of practical acute topics.
Many people are fond of philosophy as a method of proving “anything”, and this was also the purpose of clever SOPHISTRY-the evil daughter of philosophy.
CONFUCIUS – a unique genius thinker and philosopher-gave brilliant philosophical and practical recipes for optimal behavior and thinking of people in real life and thus showed what philosophy could give people, but did not give it.
To teach a person a philosophical worldview, a person must be developed from childhood by direct observation of natural phenomena and taught to look for the origins, course and possible consequences of the events that occurred. That is, it is necessary to develop logical thinking from childhood. Young people gain experience over the course of their lives.
With developed logical thinking, intuitive consciousness is gradually formed. And then, when generalizing the knowledge and skills gained by experience, a consciousness that anticipates events is also formed. This is the only way to gain an Enlightened consciousness of wisdom. Such people make scientific discoveries and promote the development of society.
A wise person is able to generalize and create schemes (systems) – such a person can show in which direction the human society will go under certain conditions: that is, it will follow the path of development or degradation and destruction.
To have an active (effective) mind, a person needs to work in nature from childhood: plant, water, grow, take care of animals and birds. Explore the forest, rivers, seas, walking with your feet and carefully studying. Work seriously, creating something, making tools of production, what are the necessary crafts. Cook, clean the house, etc
The current education system has completely lifted children off the ground, driving in theoretical knowledge that is incomprehensible and boring for a child. In urban life, the child is oriented to life in offices. Outside the walls of houses, a person becomes helpless before Nature, having lost natural skills.
People are guided to live in the state of a herd, and those who dictate the conditions of living and working are appointed shepherds.
Therefore , there is no need to talk about any philosophical worldview, that is, a wise scientific foresight.
Many go into rural life to escape the shackles of the city. But a person cannot survive alone.
The development of a social society is possible only with the overall development of the entire community.
In this period of time, material values are imposed on humanity, for which a person sacrifices his health, attachments, moral values, and his life.
And humanity still has the task of developing the highest moral values, that is, to become a fully thinking person, and not a stupid ruminant animal.
Humanity was surrounded on all sides, calling not to think, but to have fun and stupidly work in offices. Therefore, women are bitches, and men are tortured impotent. All angry and tortured by stressful circumstances under the blows of the whips of shepherds.
So now very few people want to work with their hands. And smart hands mean creative thoughts and a joyful life.
Yes, for the sake of g-d…) There are philosophers who explain the world. and there is someone who changes! Nietzsche with the Superman was so interpreted by the ideologists of Nazism. which led to fundamental changes in the world. That's not what he meant…like Spinoza in the novel The Spinoza Problem by Irwin Yalom.
“They lived at different times. They couldn't have had anything in common. One was a great philosopher, the other a Nazi criminal. But their destinies are surprisingly intertwined. The new book of the famous psychotherapist and fiction writer Irwin Yalom is an incomparable synthesis of historical and psychological novel. Biographies of the genius and villain-Benedict Spinoza and Alfred Rosenberg-an intriguing plot, deep insight into the inner world of the characters, artfully drawn entourage of the XVII and XX centuries, the author's impeccable style make “The Spinoza Problem” a wonderful gift “
Philosophy can and should increase its practical effectiveness by 1000 times – on the way to solving acute practical problems of life. Any professional philosopher knows a huge list of these practical problems, but does not respond to them without instructions from above…
There are very rare and beautiful exceptions – the most beautiful and useful practical works of famous philosophers, which illustrate and prove that philosophers can work very efficiently and productively in a practical direction and not only spoil the paper and ecology by writing extremely useless things.
The standard philosopher “does not see” actual practical problems at close range, but instantly reacts effectively to the unfortunate instructions of the smallest political bureaucrat.
Giant mountains of useless philosophical abstract texts can no longer fit into any naphthalene archives and need to be buried as radioactive waste.
The great philosopher Confucius proved that philosophy can be very useful and practical – his aphorisms/advice are extremely effective in real life.
But this is a very rare exceptional case.
The party's political service has greatly damaged or undermined this philosophy.
Philosophy once took the path of simplification, trying to reduce everything to dualism, and that, as a science, ended there. Instead of constructing some more complex gradation,which perfectly fits various multi-level structures, would-be philosophers beat their heads with the speed of a jackhammer, trying to give birth to some universal truth that this is good and this is bad, burying philosophy in history
Not to say that this is a very authoritative source, but Slava Zizek in the film (oddly enough) “Zizek”, lying in bed, says that philosophy does not solve actual problems, it reflects on them. Let's say an asteroid is flying to Earth and we don't need philosophy to shoot it down. We need advanced science and technology. But if you get as far away from this situation as possible, you can ask the question: Is humanity worth saving? And it is over these questions that philosophy decides. Hegel said: “Minerva the owl takes off at midnight,” which means that philosophy is the last thing that comes to mind.
At the turn of human ideas is art, and philosophy comprehends these achievements, gradually bringing discoveries, both great and controversial, to unnecessary garbage or to introduce them into the usual order of things. Let's imagine a hypothetical and very conditional situation, that there is no philosophy and art, but only science and technology. The techies beat the puny humanitarians. My point is that all these charming Sheldon Coopers will kill each other with the latest technological advances in no time at all. Because ethics are not created by logical means. The fact that humanity is worthy of salvation and existence is the merit of philosophy. The fact that human rights were invented is a merit of philosophy. The fact that we can talk freely with you here like this, ask questions and get answers is due to philosophy, which first establishes a certain order of things, and then gradually criticizes them, because there is no limit and limits to the concept of man, except for those that we ourselves establish.
Yes, philosophy won't help you fix a faucet or defend yourself in a fight. But it is thanks to her that you have the right to own this crane, find all the necessary information about this crane and freely buy tools. And also read a textbook on self-defense and break into someone. Or buy a hardcover copy of Marx's Das Kapital and use it as a means of self-defense. A strong package and centrifugal force will help you.
This is what people say who are far from philosophy, are not familiar with it, and have rather limited ideas about culture and civilization. Ask them on what basis they came to this conclusion. What was the last thing you read? What thinkers do they like? Ask people who devalue philosophy to tell you about their value system and worldview. There is a high probability that you will hear the answer on the “kitchen” level.
To study philosophy requires serious preparation. Creating your own philosophical system requires a lot of hard work and talent. I believe that attributing the philosophy of “kitchenness” is a way of devaluing, creating the illusion of self – importance.
Most people think that a tomato is a vegetable because it is unsweetened.
To be honest, I think it's about Lucretius ' On the Nature of Things and natural philosophy in general.
Most people also believe that history is useless as a science, because “something has passed, and society and people have changed beyond recognition since then.”
Both are due to the fact that most people are simply not interested in looking at social connections and phenomena. Yes it is for the best: someone has to plow the land and build houses and bridges.
Modern philosophy does NOT give a person the keys to understanding the world. Also, it does NOT form objective criteria for self-assessment.
Right now, philosophy DOESN'T help a young person chart their path in life.
And if so, why? For the self-development of philosophers? “For God's sake! As they say. Just don't make a cult out of it.
Fundamentals of the philosophy of natural science created (formed) Newton. So they remained and now. At least this is introduced at school.
What's next? The last famous philosopher of our time was Stephen Hawking, I think. Someone else? Who is it? Why don't I know?
Here, as if philosophers were talking about how much you need to know and learn in order to understand their hardships …
What's that for? Their own are above the roof.
The foundations of Newton's philosophy were relevant up to and including the nineteenth century. But, already in the nineteenth century, there were attempts at renewal. This was due to the rapid development of science.
This renewal was reduced to what Lenin very aptly described: “Matter disappears. Formulas remain” (I think he was quoting someone at the same time. I don't remember exactly/
This “disappearance of matter” is death for the philosophy of natural science. By definition. In principle, a serious illness could also befall science. But, science has spread in technological directions. They are material and they are in demand by society.
And what was left for philosophy? – Break up into platoons and run away also in technological directions? Well, … somehow this should not be peculiar to philosophy. If only because nature is one and does not draw any technological boundaries.
However, in fact, this is exactly what happened.
This is not to say that philosophy left its pedestal without a fight.
For example, we generally banned genetics. They did not encourage (to put it mildly) relativism. By the way! With the latter, and in general, the circus turned out. Most cultures have somehow gone through this sensibly. And we just now have a relativist every second. That's why he considers himself the first.
—————
A lot of difficult questions. Is philosophy still picking its nose? Who is to blame? Why wasn't it treated?
🙂
Or does it identify false scientists? Pseudoscience, false dissertations…
Ah, got it. It's none of her business, either. How not to understand. There is an auction for money going on.
The education system is working at its limit. The edge is already visible when there is not enough life to get the knowledge necessary for lifetime productive work. Society is forced to follow the path of narrow specialization of even basic knowledge. Of course, by their general impoverishment. Such a specialist is already forced to work stupidly. Hurry up to use what is still relevant.
Is this not a problem?
The point is that the negation of philosophy with arguments, arguments, etc., is essentially philosophy, the essence of the term, in itself. So the denial of philosophy is a branch of philosophy.
Many people get acquainted with philosophy in the framework of studying at a university, then graduate school. It is necessary to get acquainted briefly with the work of a large number of people in a short period of time. Plus, the very teaching of this subject can be disgusting. Therefore, it is not up to understanding the deep essence in such conditions. Therefore, the work of philosophers who have not made scientific discoveries really seems to be a transfusion from empty to empty. Therefore, philosophy can be interesting as an evolution of human thought, way of thinking, but in no case as dogmas and scientific discoveries.
Because now you can't find a real philosopher. Not enough of them. They are currently working either in the field of theoretical physics and mathematics (on the most complex issues), or on problems of artificial intelligence and everything related to this. Well, maybe some other topic. Where you need to go beyond the known methods of thinking and come up with something new, think “over”.
In short, only a few thousand for the entire planet. And the rest are just chatterboxes, and nothing more. Well, even good teachers come out of philosophers.
In fact, this is true, because philosophers were people who were not burdened with work, caring for their family and relatives, and even more so with the question of where and how to earn more money in order to provide both themselves and their family with the means to continue living
Perhaps the reason is that philosophy does not allow a person to realize himself and his capabilities in the world around him and society. On the one hand, the use of philosophy begins only with the acquisition of life experience and wisdom, on the other hand, how to use it in practice or apply it is not always clear. But of course, the use of philosophy depends on the development of the individual and education.
Of course, from incompetence! In this question. Philosophy is the direction of life, in so many ways.But to understand it is extremely uncomfortable.But life itself suggests its necessity
Because ancient philosophy is very distorted, and modern philosophy is just “fairy tales” or fiction, and-like most humanities – has little to do with reality. When studying philosophy in universities, nothing but boredom causes death. “Love for wisdom” should be based on experience, and not on invented fables of false scientists on grants ( not to be confused with Zhiguli).
Because most people are idiots and can't see past their noses. If people thought about it, they would understand that they have an eternal soul that needs to be saved from sinful passions, but people are stupid and even after coming to Christianity they think that everything is decided by rituals and candles. People are slaves to their passions. Passions don't like to think and their slaves don't want to think
When people say something, they speak from their own soul-their own feelings. which were formed as a result of their life and activities.
Remember! People are always right when they talk about their attitude to something.
Do you remember? What did the people of Russia call Democracy?. A SHITOCRACY!
Gorbachev-Marked. Yeltsin Was an Alcoholic, Benya Zltzman.
Here, people speak of philosophy as a bunch of talkers.
Philosophy is a great thing. The right science, But the trouble is, philosophy is created by mere opportunists and scoundrels.
Philosophy needs breakthrough changes.
Philosophy (science) must be – Forward-looking, developing humanity.
All philosophy, from ancient times to the present day, is academic verbiage. There the men talk words and pay them money for it.
In reality, PHILOSOPHY should perform the functions of a forward-looking person in developing humanity. Philosophy is a very important tool for understanding the world and determining the laws of human existence.
You can't do without Philosophy. And modern philosophy is useless. Parasites.
Ignorance gives rise to such judgments. Philosophy promotes spiritual development.
The role of philosophy and its significance in the history of the development of human consciousness have changed. Now, in my opinion, philosophy should give an impulse to think, and it does not matter to what area of knowledge thinking is directed. Correct thinking is important everywhere and in everything.
It is very important in our time of falling morals and reducing the meaning of life only to material well-being, to show humanity the advantages of a person who expands his consciousness and knows the whole world within himself.
It is also important to promote philosophy, delve into the essence of scientific discoveries and compare them, find a place in the Teachings.
Philosophy is the love of knowledge. But as a rule, people are fond of talking about knowledge, which contributes little practical to a person's life. Especially when it comes to fundamental and especially important truths. A wise book 2,000 years ago cautioned about the influence of philosophy,
“Take heed … that no one leads you astray with philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ” (Colossians 2: 8).
What truths about Christ can bring true benefits to a person's life? The Bible responds.
This is putting it mildly – about useless and strange.
Philosophy is a criminal, false fairy tale against the Russians and Christ.
They say they have philosophers in white sheets sitting in parliament in Rome, and here we are sitting in our trees and waiting for two Greek brothers with the alphabet.
The opposite is true.
There was no ancient Rome or Ancient Greece.
They were barbarians with no states and no written language.
Neither the macaroni people nor the Greeks had any philosophers.
Philosophy itself has passed by the Teachings of Christ-
Birth 6660 summer (1152) Vladimir
Care 1296.
So she doesn't know shit about man or God.
Once upon a time, philosophy was the only science. It had its own method, which was used in all cases.
Gradually, it began to distinguish specific sciences that have their own objects and research goals. They developed their own methods. And they started getting meaningful results.
The whole tree of sciences grew out of philosophy as a seed. But what happened to the seed itself?
In fact, only the history of philosophy remained in philosophy. Who ever said what on various occasions.
When discussing any more or less specific problem, we will find that there is a special science (or even more than one) that has made great progress in this matter. Philosophy has become the domain of dilettantes.
Philosophy is the mother of all sciences, but it turns out that the mother herself is naked.
Those questions that are needed and have a sufficient basis, are in demand by society, are allocated to separate sciences for intensification (or, while remaining separate sections of philosophy, are still perceived as such), and it turns out that today, in the mass view, “philosophy” itself is engaged in strange detached conversations.
In the ancient world, there were no such problems, since everyone was a generalist and studied all the sciences, and the philosopher was just “smart people”. Today, there are still historically the titles of “doctor of philosophy in physics”, etc.
The funny thing is, philosophers thought about the laws of the physical world, but when the data accumulated, physicists said: “no, we are a separate science, then we ourselves”, philosophers thought about the laws of numbers-mathematicians said that they themselves went further, philosophers thought about human behavior – and psychology spun off, philosophers thought about the correctness and rigor of thinking-today most people will say that logic is not philosophy, but a very useful thing 🙂
It all depends on what is most often taught. Often these are arguments about existentialism, the meaning of life and all this, Sartre, Schopenhauer. Russian education does not understand why philosophy is needed at all.
There is also a practical application. For science, it is most often manifested in ethical issues, but gradually any science develops philosophical methods of cognition, and separates from philosophy, as was the case, for example, in medicine with the development of increasingly effective research methods (double-blind placebo-controlled studies). But these are specific applications.
The situation is quite different in teaching philosophy, for example, at Harvard. Where else will they tell you about the trolley dilemma, and about everyday examples of using this abstract model? How many people know why informed consent is important? There you will learn more about Jeremiah Bentham, utilitarianism, categorical morality, how people made important historical decisions, and the more mundane, everyday things that we all encounter every day.
Since I was forty years old, I consider myself a home philosopher, and I have experienced all the bitterness and pitfalls of those who like to speculate about the eternal. What can we say about the great ones? But if you delve deeper into the topic, it means that real (learned) philosophers are comfortable only in a scientific environment, among people who are sufficiently educated to understand the complexity of this wisdom. The people in general do not reach such a high level. But it would be half the trouble if the masses were aware of this, otherwise it is true that “the sleep of reason gives birth to monsters”! But philosophy covers all areas of activity, unlike, for example, mathematics. This is a great science.
Because outside of science, everyday philosophy is useless and strange reasoning or distant conversations about life, more often under half a liter…
Only a few distinguish Hegel from Bebel, Bebel from Babel, and Babel from Gogol :))))
The very word “philosophy “does not imply anything reprehensible and is translated as”love of wisdom”. However, if we consider this question from a Christian point of view, then not all philosophy is useful for teaching in the faith.
Take heed, brethren, that no one leads you astray with philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ. (Colossians 2: 8)
At the time of its origin, philosophy was a very practical thing – at least for a philosopher. It was passed down from teacher to student largely by personal example. It was also transmitted verbally, but verbally, and at first it was not recorded. The reason was not only its practicality, but also the small number of literate people who write and read, and the relative high cost of parchments and other text carriers.
We can say this: initially, philosophy was a logical-cultural way of life, which the philosopher opposed to the evolutionary-cultural way of life. Philosophy was partly an experiment-not a random venture after all, so only partly an experiment. A philosophical way of life might turn out to be better than a natural one if logic was good in everything, or it might turn out to be worse if logic was bad in everything, or it might turn out to be better in one thing and worse in another.
To test how good or bad logic was, a philosopher's mind alone wasn't enough. Many philosophers of the first centuries of philosophy acted like some doctors of the last centuries of medicine, who tested the logic of new methods of treatment by testing them “on their own skin”.
Philosophy emerged when Homo Sapiens began to apply the mind to familiar objects and related matters, not individually, but to the entire circle of familiar objects and matters at once. Not all Homo Sapiens and not most, but only out of the ordinary.
Over time, much of the philosophy was transformed from a way of life to a thought about a way of life. From the thought of a way of life to the thought of a thought. In addition, printing was invented and many people became literate. Since both were done, most of the philosophy exists only on paper.
The current philosophy is associated with many, sometimes opposite, images. Sometimes with the image of an almost academic professional addressing her continuously, sometimes with the image of an amateur addressing her occasionally. Then with the image of a successful person in his own way, then with the image of a loser. But at the time of its origin, philosophy was not associated with any of them. Initially, philosophy was associated with the image of a rebel – not in the later sense, not as a rebel as we know him, but still a rebel.
Later philosophy, when it is rebellious, is opposed not to a naturally established way of life, but to an excessively specialized way of life – a specialized profession, a specialized leisure.
It depends on what the philosopher's goal is. If you just show yourself smart and earn money, then there is no point.
There are enough of them among scientists who invent commercial hypotheses for profit and deception.
probably there are more such people among philosophers, since it is more difficult to catch them in dishonest tendencies.
Because they can only believe in the kitchen philosophy, men. 1 character. 2 character. 3 character. 4 character. 5 character. 6 character. 7 character. 8 character. 9 character.
Here are some quotes from Woody Allen's film “Irrational Man”: :
I have always loved philosophy and to some extent continue … BUT. 1) The problem is that what is taught in the university course called “Philosophy” is only a history of philosophical ideas. Subjective and not reducible to any “unified theory”. Philosophy cannot be raised to the level of a science with a paradigm of consistent and infallible methodologies. However, this does not detract from the importance of philosophy; on the contrary, in today's world it is one of the critically necessary forms of development of human thinking and consciousness. Despite the fact that it is in the current world that philosophy is as unnecessary and unclaimed as possible, and even more so in Russia. Philosophical thinking (even if not education – at least thinking) in the new socio-political reality will be the privilege of a select few who can afford the luxury of thinking independently…
2) philosophy has never been a “detached conversation about life”, the question is not in it, but in society – in its everyday life, motivations and relevance of philosophical topics. Just as in ancient times “literature” meant any kind of bookishness – from an epic to a philosophical treatise and a manual on agriculture – “philosophy” should not be divided into “psychology”, “political science”, etc. (these “offshoots” themselves are pseudoscientific). In fact, the point is how much people are generally able to perceive abstractions and apply them in their lives – most likely, the consumer society will reject philosophy, preferring the principle of “bread and circuses”. It's unlikely to last long, but it doesn't matter.
3) philosophy is a culture of thought. Apparently, each individual must decide for himself whether he needs it or not. If” there is an opinion among men “that philosophy is useless , then, as Christ said,” let the dead bury their dead.” It is impossible to force an intellectual life. Let the so-called “collective consciousness” pass judgment on itself.
Because people don't understand that causality is primarily a philosophical assumption, which only now has become a commonplace, and before that it was only a philosophical hypothesis. That the world is known by the mind is the same philosophical hypothesis that has developed into a science, and this is by no means an obvious thought, there was no such thing as a pithecanthrope sitting there and saying “oh, hey pasans, but the world is known by our mind and consists of causal connections that we can register with the help of this very mind”, humanity, in fact, had to Let me remind you that before creating the science of mathematics, all sorts of Pythagoreans worshipped number as a deity. That “human rights” is the same hypothesis, but otherwise a person has neither rights nor freedoms. People simply do not understand how much they are surrounded by philosophical constructions from previous centuries, how much they operate with concepts that were formulated by individuals in philosophy and these concepts were introduced by them into our everyday life. That the logic on which everything is active *** is actually essentially an invention of Aristotle to complicate sophists, and later it was refined by various philosophers, that on the basis of this very logic a “logical valve” was created, that on the basis of this very ventel all these processors of yours were created, on the basis of these very processors we are sitting and writing all sorts of nonsense in these your Internets, and the beginning of this somewhere there in Greece when Aristotle was sitting on a pebble, without electricity and other amenities, and purely for philosophical purposes came up with how to remember the sophists
People are different…one is football…another shopping experience…choose poetry or a man…for some, love of wisdom is philosophy. For some reason, many people are attracted to the opportunity to express their opinion where they do not understand. In the 80s, the whole country was teachers and doctors. Now everyone has become political scientists and philosophers.
they are seen by teachers. who teaches philosophy? talkers. do you think teachers practice everything they teach? they don't even understand what philosophy is for.
in fact, philosophy is such a club. thanks to philosophy, smart people can take a break from important things and reflect. and at the same time, understand better your friends, colleagues, friends, and relatives. find and select smart people to do great things together.
for example, patriots are selected for important positions through conversations about history. and they put people in key positions to provide influence and control when they see the depth of their mind. two smart people will always understand each other and come to an agreement. but patriots and historians will always find a reason to quarrel and become enemies
I first want to know who these people are who judge philosophy and have their own opinion about its uselessness, etc. If you refer to the axiom of Carlyle or to the opinion of A. Chekhov about the mental abilities of a huge number of people. Then these arguments are not surprising. Everything is natural! Philosophy, especially Oriental, is the light that illuminates the path of all mankind. By studying it and understanding it, humanity is enriched and enlightened. And for the rest, you can express your condolences, they are not to blame for not being given this!!! With respect.
Yes, because even exams have turned from a demonstration of knowledge into a test of IT! What kind of “opinion” do you want about the “love of wisdom”?! And if somewhere on your planet someone else is thinking deeply about something, then we are flying to you!!!))
I do not pretend to be true, but there is such an assumption. The word “philosophy” (philosopher, philosophize) is often used, and a person hears it, most likely, in everyday life from a not yet fully conscious age. That is, it's not the same story when you found out a new word for yourself and started Googling it. And what is called philosophy in everyday life? Reasoning about nothing. Who will be called a philosopher in everyday life? A babbler who talks about all sorts of nonsense that is not relevant at the moment.
Also here, it seems to me, it will be relevant to look for a question about strange philosophy teachers (it is quite popular here). From my own experience, many university philosophers do not contribute to the formation of a positive opinion about philosophy by their behavior.
Perhaps these are people who don't want to expand their horizons. After all, if you absorb a lot of opinions of philosophers and ordinary people, then how many ideas will you have about just one thing! You just have a fantasy to develop, logical thinking, you will develop in general!�
And if you throw away the whole philosophy, then a person will live in his own world of comfort and stereotypes. His life will be not bad, but not good, everything will go smoothly.
Philosophy is reasoning. Reasoning is always development. Development is progress.�
Only my opinion is expressed here, and it may be infinitely far from the truth.