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

[Kyriakos]

A basic question: what do people think of Philosophy, if they have no university background in it, or if they largely don't bother with philosophical books either.

I ask cause i will soon be presenting some stuff on this cursed and fallen order (philosophy) to some people in a education (primarily book-reading)-linked setting.

*

I am pretty sure that the general public tends to have a negative view of 'Philosophy', and i can see why. Most philosophy in current education or everyday life is either not really philosophy, or is so watered-down and sporadic that it might as well be thought of as general opionated view. Moreover, if someone actually says something more tied to philosophical books, they often are not very well-versed in the subject either, so they come across as self-proclaimed thinkers and again cause other people to think lowly of philosophy.

Which is why my own plan for those meetings/discussions/talks is to first of all highlight that philosophy is not about some impossibly abstract issue, but about the core of human thought, well-being, logic, and knowledge of one's self.
Of course, like any other subject, it can get very abstract, but this doesn't mean it is very abstract to begin with. I am sure not many 6-year olds would view a clear organising value in math if they were not presented with arithmetic, but with calculus. But without the ideas that arithmetic is created and sustained by, the latter is of no value either.

 

[classical_hero]

I like what the Simpsons say about Philosophy Majors, "Joblessness is no longer just for Philosophy majors - useful people are starting to feel the pinch." Apparently Matt Groening took Philosophy at Uni.

 

[Tahuti]

Philosophy is the basis for pretty much all thought. You could perhaps call it 'metagnosis' as well, the knowledge of knowledge. Only maths and logic are more basal than philosophy, however, pretty much everyone who has completed high school has a knowledge of mathematics comparable to the Greek philosophers.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I think it is mostly obsolete.
Philosphy used to be a catch-all term for sciences, subdivided into ethics, political philosophy, natural philosophy and such. Now that chemistry, physics, mathematics, psychology, political science etc are defined fields, there isn't really anything worthwile left under the mantle of philosophy.

 

[Kyriakos]

Philosophy is the basis for pretty much all thought. You could perhaps call it 'metagnosis' as well, the knowledge of knowledge. Only maths and logic are more basal than philosophy, however, pretty much everyone who has completed high school has a knowledge of mathematics comparable to the Greek philosophers.

Hey, that is not correct For example not many people without any math direction at late school or actual university, would know that much about the regular polyhedra theorems/proof, or ancient spirals, or the sieve of prime numbers (4rth century BC). Surely they would know typically of the pythagorean theorem, eucledian geometry, basic math including algebra, but they are very unlikely to be aware of the focus on math in greek philosophy of antiquity, which was so common that Plato famously had the Academy use in its entrace the phrase "let no one enter who is not able in geometry"

So while a lot of math known to the philosophers of the time would be known in highschool now (and then too), it is not also true for the actual math dealings of the main mathematicians of that era (Anaxagoras, Eratosthenes, Archimedes etc).

Although i would not tend to present any of that in the first parts of the discussions anyway, cause it would seem even more elitist and pointless. The focus will be on self-reflection, objectivity and subjectivity in thought, and how our own mental planes can define to a large (although not total) degree how we feel about the external situations which are hard.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

When I was typing for college/university students, the occasional philosophy paper came my way. I found them the most difficult of all subjects to deal with, because they never made any sense to me. When a client asked, "What did you think of my paper?" all I could say was, "I'll take your word for it."

 

[Kyriakos]

^Although it should be noted - of course - that sometimes a paper does not make any sense, cause it doesn't anyway

That said, ambiguity is always a friend of a student of philosophy. I was not a good student, so i often made sentences so ambiguous that at least some of the possible meanings could still stand regardless of what else was in the text i did not bother to read :/

 

[Phrossack]

I have pretty negative views of philosophy. It generally brings to mind sophistry and the kinds of people who, when confronted with a burning building with people trapped inside, will ask, "Can we prove that the building is really on fire? What is a building, anyway? If it's an artificial enclosed space, wouldn't the gaping holes left by the fire make it less of a building? Do the people trapped inside really exist? We can't conclusively prove that they do, since our senses are flawed, and even if they do exist, saving them merely entails postponing their inevitable deaths."

Now, this might be a somewhat unfair characterization, and I know I'll get taken to task for it, but it is what springs to mind.

 

[Kyriakos]

I have pretty negative views of philosophy. It generally brings to mind sophistry and the kinds of people who, when confronted with a burning building with people trapped inside, will ask, "Can we prove that the building is really on fire? What is a building, anyway? If it's an artificial enclosed space, wouldn't the gaping holes left by the fire make it less of a building? Do the people trapped inside really exist? We can't conclusively prove that they do, since our senses are flawed, and even if they do exist, saving them merely entails postponing their inevitable deaths."

Now, this might be a somewhat unfair characterization, and I know I'll get taken to task for it, but it is what springs to mind.

I think it is quite correct. As long as the building itself is in a hypothetical

 

[Tahuti]

I think it is mostly obsolete.
Philosphy used to be a catch-all term for sciences, subdivided into ethics, political philosophy, natural philosophy and such. Now that chemistry, physics, mathematics, psychology, political science etc are defined fields, there isn't really anything worthwile left under the mantle of philosophy.

That's a fairly dangerous view, especially given that philosophy has been yielding to pseudo-empirical 'sciences' like sociology and econometrics. I call them pseudo-empirical because those fields attempt to use empirical research methods onto subjects of study where such cannot be fully utilised, if at all, namely human actions. No field is ever completely defined, and what's more, needs to be placed in the service of mankind itself. Overall, philosophy provides a moral compass, because it does not solely observe.

 

[timtofly]

I have pretty negative views of philosophy. It generally brings to mind sophistry and the kinds of people who, when confronted with a burning building with people trapped inside, will ask, "Can we prove that the building is really on fire? What is a building, anyway? If it's an artificial enclosed space, wouldn't the gaping holes left by the fire make it less of a building? Do the people trapped inside really exist? We can't conclusively prove that they do, since our senses are flawed, and even if they do exist, saving them merely entails postponing their inevitable deaths."

Now, this might be a somewhat unfair characterization, and I know I'll get taken to task for it, but it is what springs to mind.

At least they put some thought into it. Most people would just walk away agreeing that it was on fire.

 

[Kyriakos]

At least they put some thought into it. Most people would just walk away agreeing that it was on fire.

Or risk being accused of a hate-crime/conspiracy theory

 

[civvver]

I think critical thinking is an important skill to learn at all levels, both abstractly and pragmatically. I think often philosophy gets a bad rap as being an esoteric non-applicable practice, but that's not really true. If you look at a lot of classic philosophical works like Plato's Republic and Machiavelli's The Prince and then objectively apply them to modern day you can see their influence all over the place, or maybe not the influence of those works but the observations in those works still being relevant to modern human behavior.

 

[bugwar]

Isn't Philosophy the original entertainment major?
Hasn't progressed much since inception,
though it keeps trust fund babies off the streets.

 

[civver_764]

I think if you study something because its useful you're doing it wrong.

 

[bugwar]

I think if you study something because its useful you're doing it wrong.

Sounds like a liberal arts major talking to an engineering major.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I leave the study of philosophy itself to others. I'm more interested in its applications, much as I prefer physics to math, and experimental physics to theoretical physics.

 

[gay_Aleks]

It sure is a wide term, which unfortunately covers some things that aren't philosophy.

 

[Tahuti]

Sounds like a liberal arts major talking to an engineering major.

I study CS and I agree with civ_764. College was never intended as a ticket to the job market.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

A basic question: what do people think of Philosophy, if they have no university background in it, or if they largely don't bother with philosophical books either.

A study of meaning, the foundation of logic, and the definition of definition.