What do people without degrees/background in Philosophy, think of that term?

[Camikaze]

I read a decentish reddit post recently about why philosophy is harder to explain to people than empirical sciences. The basic point was that it's much easier to appreciate the consequences of a scientific argument without knowing anything about the academic context than it is to appreciate a philosophical argument. That seems true enough, and I certainly think there's a tendency to disparage philosophy because the implications of it aren't so readily apparent. It's also the case with scientific advances that don't seem to yield immediate material benefits (e.g. the scepticism towards funding space exploration).

I don't think philosophy is any more necessary to know than any given science, though. It's just that it does actually have value.

You get it the wrong way: College was never intended to prop up your resume save for within academia. Never. This is a late 20th century thing.

What college used to be intended for hardly seems relevant to whether or not studying something vocational is 'doing it wrong'.

 

[downtown]

I still think that a liberal arts education is useful, and that studying philosophy can give similar benefits to studying sociology, or political science, or english, or something similar. Outside of formal education, I think reading and studying philosophy can certainly provide edification. I wouldn't think less, or more, of somebody who studied it.

I would hope that somebody who did formally study philosophy would have a path in mind for how they intended to use it.

 

[Hygro]

If that is your take on J.P. Morgan, far be for me to disabuse you.

Little did JP Morgan know, it would happen again.

 

[Luckymoose]

Philosophy is History without substance.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Philosophy is History without substance.

And something about trees. I wouldn't be surprised if turns this whole "philosophy" business turns out to be a marketing scam by Ancient Greek lumberjacks or something.