Philosophers: scurrilous, petty, irrelevant, silly, intellectual wimps

[barts]

To ask questions others are afraid to ask. To question the status quo and challenge conventional wisdom. To get people to think instead of just doing.

Now that would be useful contribution, but that's not what they are doing. Canvas the current academic literature. It is bereft of anything even remotely approaching what you suggest.

Most working philosophers are in academic institutions, which today are not remotely interested in challenging the status quo, because the status quo and its beneficiaries pay the bills. Consequently, most philosophers in universities toe the party line and grovel and hope for tenure. Doing nothing more useful than what a good History Channel documentary could accomplish.

Deeper questions, the one's others are afraid to ask, are, in fact, being asked by radical political activists on the far fringes of society where few if any philosopher dares to go.

Today, any working philosopher who actually did what you suggest would lose their academic post.

[BlackSheep]

Now that would be useful contribution, but that's not what they are doing. Canvas the current academic literature. It is bereft of anything even remotely approaching what you suggest.

Most working philosophers are in academic institutions, which today are not remotely interested in challenging the status quo, because the status quo and its beneficiaries pay the bills. Consequently, most philosophers in universities toe the party line and grovel and hope for tenure. Doing nothing more useful than what a good History Channel documentary could accomplish.

Deeper questions, the one's others are afraid to ask, are, in fact, being asked by radical political activists on the far fringes of society where few if any philosopher dares to go.

Today, any working philosopher who actually did what you suggest would lose their academic post.

I guess I am not surprised. I don't actively follow philosophy, but I do try to live it.
I see too much of this in our society. People are too afraid to upset the apple card that they do nothing good. Don't ask the questions that will make me look bad or make me an outcast, don't get involved when people need help.

[notthecheatr]

With few exceptions most of what we deal with in areas of science, economics, social sciences, religion, etc. is not about facts at all but values.

I agree 100%.

Values and ethics are the natural domain of philosophers. Yet when was the last time in a discussion about culling urban wildlife, or the Occupy Wall Street movement, or climate change did anyone ask for the views of a philosopher with an expertise in ethics or values?

This is probably the answer to your whole question. As long as there is no demand for philosophers to offer their opinions in these areas, they won't. I've read books with philosophers discussing these things... but these are books nobody reads, nobody talks about, and certainly nobody consults them in any practical matters. I think this is a tragedy, that values are essentially lost to the modern world and the debate focuses not on philosophy, but on whatever the people want to hear at the time - pop culture "values," pop religious "values," anything but real intellectual conversation on the things that matter to us the most.

As I say, after at least 2,500 years of philosophical thinking, don't you think some progress would have been made in determining such things as what is "right" and what is "wrong", or how to decide between "good" and "bad"? Something the average person deals with daily with no help from philosophers who are, they tell us and their university paymasters, investigating these things.

I think the problem is that too much of it is either focused on logic or religious roots for morality, when in reality morality originates from a somewhat dirtier place.

Philosophers, for the most part, are academic wimps. Vacillation is their game. Apart from encouraging some interesting thinking exercises, a sort of Pilates for the Brain, their social and academic value is marginal to none.

Which I think is a shame, but I wouldn't blame them - at least not entirely. Should we come up with an advertising campaign to get some street cred for philosophers? [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCyIohPjVs8]In this video[/url] they do just that.

In closing, religious leaders, it's worth noting, are more intellectually courageous when it comes to values than philosophers.

Courageous, but vapid. They do what they do because they stand to make a profit. Even the best tenure a philosophy professor could come up with can't compare to a megachurch salary, can it?

While, in my view, philosophy should and could be at the forefront of decision making, for the most part the best most philosophers do is give credence to the joke, "The engineer asks ‘how can I build that?’ the scientist asks ‘how does it work?’ and the philosopher asks ‘do you want fries with that?’"

Might be a product of the times. Western culture is perhaps at its lowest point now than in all of its history. At the risk of attacking you, I'd say it's people with that attitude for philosophy that makes philosophy so useless. If people don't care what philosophy has to say, then philosophy won't have much to say.

Philosophers just love discussions about what we know and how we know it. What we know is that philosophers are, today, culturally irrelevant. How do we know? Ask a philosopher, and he or she won't be able to determine if what I just stated is a truly factual statement.

Of course they're culturally irrelevant. That's stating the obvious. The question is how to change that. You can see the problems, but you don't seem to have a solution. Again I ask, what should philosophers do? Join an intellectually vapid protest movement, like Occupy Wall Street? Now, more than ever, the world needs philosophers, but it doesn't seem to realize it.

[gharik]

The problem isn't philosophers. The problem is that philosophy doesn't give you ethics--by which I mean that philosophy does not prescribe any particular ethical system. It's like saying that mathematicians are dumb because they can't tell you which moral values are proper.

[minorwork]

Regarding the video. That guy makes money doing what he does? Gee. I can't complain though. My BA in philosophy doesn't bring calls for me to lecture about it. Not even for a minute. But I don't quite know what you expect from the subject of philosophy. I can make out quite well that you expect philosophers to take a hike and quit drawing salaries from tax payers.

Politics is how human beings decide between competing values.

Glad to be off that damn M***L word. War, then, is the failure of politics to decide between competing values. Eliminating the competition, so to speak.

Values and ethics are the natural domain of philosophers. Yet when was the last time in a discussion about culling urban wildlife, or the Occupy Wall Street movement, or climate change did anyone ask for the views of a philosopher with an expertise in ethics or values?

Hopefully the fields of science, business, and others require at least a philosophy course in logic/critical thinking for sure. Big payoff there, least for me there was.

When we discuss the wealth gap we are not discussing economics we're discussing values. What does an economist know about values?

I'd say quite a bit. Study of prices and factory orders can reveal statistical averages that correlate with values consumers place on various items. Wealth gap brings the opposite of sympathy for the poor, sympathy for the rich (envy) for their becoming more evil as their continued success rewards them for stealing, uh, doing too much good.

If we're discussing culling deer to protect Carolinian forests, or wolves to protect deer and moose we're discussing values. What does a wildlife manager know about values?

Where are you going? A lot of examples of, I guess, values. But no explanation of the term.

When a drug company decides to invest in research in a new drug to deal with hypertension to compete with a competitor, that's a values decision, that puts profit above human welfare. Those are values.

Why conclude profit above human welfare a result of investment? Don't see any clear sense of values there, but then I don't know yet what you mean values. Are examples all you have?

In all these discussions which are all value-based there is rarely a philosopher to be seen. And if by some rare chance a philosopher does appear (see Practical Ethics), the best they can usually offer is an argument that goes "on the one hand" and "then again on the other hand."

Options are not desirable that values should be assigned?

As I say, after at least 2,500 years of philosophical thinking, don't you think some progress would have been made in determining such things as what is "right" and what is "wrong", or how to decide between "good" and "bad"? Something the average person deals with daily with no help from philosophers who are, they tell us and their university paymasters, investigating these things.

Right and wrong way to make change is dealt with daily by Burger King employees with no need to employ math skills either. But when the power goes off can I expect a consistent $0.57 back in change from a $10 bill for a $9.43 purchase? In the same manner when decisions are obvious and done automatically, where is the necessity to use the skill set that philosophy presents? Why do math when the calculator does it? Still have to learn how to present a problem to the calculator and that is the philosophy part of math that is not instinctual knowledge. But it doesn't take a philosopher to do the teaching of the techniques which come from correct practices.

Philosophers, for the most part, are academic wimps. Vacillation is their game. Apart from encouraging some interesting thinking exercises, a sort of Pilates for the Brain, their social and academic value is marginal to none.

Profs I had back in early '70s? Mmmm, I can't say I saw that. They had their hands full trying to teach business majors the VALUE of making a valid sound statement as a Well Formed Formula. One young temp replacement for the Dean (from Britain and taught British philosophy)threw some hellacious parties at the Dean's house, dated a school cheerleader, and married her while the Dean was on sabbatical. The professors of philosophy I had were politically active and liberal enthusiasts of George McGovern over Richard Nixon. I saw two at the marches on the courthouse protesting the Vietnam War. Too peaceful to test their courage or mine were those peace rallies.

In closing, religious leaders, it's worth noting, are more intellectually courageous when it comes to values than philosophers.

That statement reinforces my opinion that those who make such statements put more value on their own opinions than on others'. Sure, a trivial statement, I know, as trivial as yours when examples and explanations are lacking. Both opinions stating our values? Maybe I am being informed about values here.

While, in my view, philosophy should and could be at the forefront of decision making, for the most part the best most philosophers do is give credence to the joke, "The engineer asks ‘how can I build that?’ the scientist asks ‘how does it work?’ and the philosopher asks ‘do you want fries with that?’"

You're gonna have to work some to compel that I buy into the idea that philosophers SHOULD be at the forefront of decision making. I'd be more inclined with modifying that to say "The demonstrably best philosophers in given field of endeavor should be at the forefront of decision making."

Philosophers just love discussions about what we know and how we know it. What we know is that philosophers are, today, culturally irrelevant. How do we know? Ask a philosopher, and he or she won't be able to determine if what I just stated is a truly factual statement.

Truly, there is no greater truth than the lie.

That a philosopher or a non-philosopher would confirm the inability to determine the truth value does NOT validate OR invalidate that philosophers are culturally irrelevancy. False cause. Fail.

The statement is a factual statement of opinion that, like everybody's asshole, still stinks.

[ric]

the core of philosophy is about solving problems. if you think its useless either you dont know very much about it, or you limit its scope to common misconceptions like "how were all connected" or something.

its not about coming to some uber-logical, super mathematical conclusion either. its about presenting a compelling case. at some point either youre going to adopt the attitude that doing bio-medical ethics is helpful, or youre not, but isnt it a fairly good idea to have somebody doing that kind of work? wouldnt you like to have some kind of guidance if a loved one is placed in a situation where theyre not able to make their own medical decisions?

philosophy is useless? tell that to the bevy of judges and lawyers who make their living and establish standards of conduct using the skill set philosophy imbues them with

[Cephus]

I've seen far too many people who want to stamp "philosophy" on their opinions to give them an air of authority and validity. While philosophy can be important as a tool, it's certainly not the only tool in the tool box and a lot of people pretend that holding up the "philosophy" sign gives them an automatic win.

Philosophy cannot only be about presenting a compelling case, that's debate. It's got to be about coming to a factually correct, defensible, logical position and far too many ad-hoc philosophers do nothing of the sort. They start with an opinion and then try to rationalize that opinion by wrapping it in layers of mental masturbatory nonsense. Of course, they'll never even examine their initial axiom to see if it's worthwhile, their emotional comfort is far too important to them to bother actually testing to see if they're in the ballpark.

[ric]

A. I've seen far too many people who want to stamp "philosophy" on their opinions to give them an air of authority and validity.

B. Philosophy cannot only be about presenting a compelling case, that's debate. It's got to be about coming to a factually correct, defensible, logical position and far too many ad-hoc philosophers do nothing of the sort.

C. They start with an opinion and then try to rationalize that opinion by wrapping it in layers of mental masturbatory nonsense.

A. that kind of thing is unfortunate. but there is something to be said for an idea that lends itself to use, even misuse, if there is such a thing.
B. debate is a method of case presentation, etc, clearly philosophy is not ONLY about presenting a compelling case.
C1. people are gonna do this, dont blame the discipline
C2. it seems a curious thing to judge what is masturbatory, not that i necessarily disagree with you

[Cephus]

A. that kind of thing is unfortunate. but there is something to be said for an idea that lends itself to use, even misuse, if there is such a thing.

It's a matter of having a core validity to a position that matters. If there's nothing at it's base, piling a bunch of hand-waving nonsense and ad-hoc rationalization on top isn't going to make the position any more stable. That's how far too much "philosophy" is used.

B. debate is a method of case presentation, etc, clearly philosophy is not ONLY about presenting a compelling case.

Unfortunately, it's not about getting at factual reality either. You can make a philosophical case for anything. You can assume the existence of leprechauns and build an elaborate framework of rationalizations around it. That doesn't make leprechauns exist.

C1. people are gonna do this, dont blame the discipline

I can blame the discipline for not having a means in place for dissuading this sort of behavior. Science has the scientific method and peer review for doing away with much of this kind of self-serving nonsense. What does philosophy have?

C2. it seems a curious thing to judge what is masturbatory, not that i necessarily disagree with you

In a lot of cases, all these people care about is emotional comfort. They desire something to be so because it makes them feel good to think that it does, then they construct a philosophical castle around it to protect it from criticism. There's no desire for the initial claim to be true or valid, only that it exists to protect their fragile egos. That's what far too much of philosophy does. It's not about getting at truth, it's about ego stroking.

[ric]

Unfortunately, it's not about getting at factual reality either. You can make a philosophical case for anything.

no. thats a MAJOR part of philosophy - matching up to reality.
you cannot make a compelling/valid case for "anything", as someone who actually does/has done philosophy would know

Science has the scientific method and peer review for doing away with much of this kind of self-serving nonsense. What does philosophy have?

philosophy has peer review at those top levels, just like science. of course philosophy has systemic, educational, etc dissuasion of garbage. however, i would give ground that not every student, major, or educator knows what theyre talking about.

In a lot of cases, all these people care about is emotional comfort. They desire something to be so because it makes them feel good to think that it does, then they construct a philosophical castle around it to protect it from criticism. There's no desire for the initial claim to be true or valid, only that it exists to protect their fragile egos. That's what far too much of philosophy does. It's not about getting at truth, it's about ego stroking.

say that about most anything, including science. people are going to be people. given our discussion so far, i am curious about what you think is an example of this kind of thing and about why you think science somehow escapes this kind of thing.

heres a question:
have you ever taken a philosophy course? what was it? what subject matter did you find particularly scurrilous?

[grandpa]

thats a MAJOR part of philosophy - matching up to reality.

True. Even those saying evolution is compatible with the
Bible (for example) are trying to prove something is real.

Grandpa h.

[Cephus]

True. Even those saying evolution is compatible with the
Bible (for example) are trying to prove something is real.

More like they're trying to fit a pre-existing belief system into reality, whether it's actually real or not.