____________________________________________________
We debaters may have often heard it remarked that "philosophy is useless" or "philosophy is meaningless", mostly by those that have less the idea of what philosophy is than whether it is useful. People ask "why do you even ask these questions? They aren't of any use at all". In my experience, these are the same sorts of people that state "maths shouldn't be taught in schools, it's a useless subject" or "when will I ever use algebra?" I have a group of friends (now ex-friends for no other reason than a gradual drift apart) who often, jokingly, responded to me in arguments by saying "but what is knowledge?" They said this because they knew I studied and enjoyed philosophy, and they knew that I studied epistemology, and they thought that fact and the question that arises from it funny in and of itself.
I started writing a book a while back, purely for my own enjoyment, and never with the intention of anybody else seeing it. However, because I'm pressed for time and there's no use in me regurgitating an argument that I already have in writing, I'll simply copy and paste the opening chapter on "the importance of philosophy". Please ignore the pretentiousness of it, because I tend to write pretentiously when I don't think anyone is looking. Here it is:
It is the strangest thing, as it seems to me, on the nature and importance of philosophy in the modern era. The question of its importance is commonly met with scorn, or a distasteful “why?” from the many that see it merely as a pretentious pastime engaged primarily by sophists and pseudo-intellectuals. Quite the contrary, I have found, the reality of the case has it.
Historically, the rigor and study of philosophy has wrought new truths–previously undiscovered–and further refined old truths. Indeed, the science has formed all manner of important uses, lest we forget the advances of Descartes and Pythagoras in mathematics, Plato in geometry, and Aristotle in logic. All too well, people say, but now we know all the truths that need to be known, and so philosophy turns upon the mystic metaphysical: a study, they say, that is of use to nobody. Yet, it appears to me that there are a number of assumptions and misconceptions contrived by such claims, the most prominent of which being that these people have less the idea of what philosophy is than whether or not it should be studied.
Firstly, one must consider what it means to think philosophically. In the most broad sense it concerns the rational thinking of underlying principles, values, and natures of we and and of the world that we inhabit. Commonly, people look upon this as little more than evaluating common-sense. “Well, I think logically”, they claim. Rarely is it the case that such self-proclaimed logicians understand the first thing about philosophical logic; most deny it even as a formal discipline.
Secondly, one must question what it is that should be so rigorously analysed. This question requires book upon book in order to describe fully, however a paragraph should suffice in scraping the surface and pushing details to one side, for the time being, although certain philosophical discussions will remain more pronounced throughout the book should they contribute to my overall philosophy.
To study any philosophy is to analyse and interpret issues and questions of the relating to: existence/ontology, reality, ethics, human relations (i.e. politics), knowledge, logic, mind and language. Most philosophers over the ages have dedicated their research and meditations towards one or a small few of these subsets. Often, to question one of these areas is to inherently question another, such as is questioning the existence of a god in need of questioning the nature of knowledge and of the language that is needed to describe such questions. A popular line of thought amongst modern philosophy is to assume that the basis of language underlies all philosophical enquiry, as the nature of our thoughts are formed through the use of our language. The later Wittgenstein held this belief, and thus undertook the study of the complexity of language and decided that “The limits of my language means the limits of my world”.
This inter-connectivity of the various sects and branches of philosophy leads me to my conclusion for this introduction: that philosophy derives its use not from itself, rather from its relation to every underpinning foundation of our human studies. What are we studying when we look at the laws of nature? We are studying through the branches of ontology and existence, through tools and thought processes given to us by philosophers throughout the ages. In addition to this, we are consequently studying the boundaries of our knowledge, and discovering the nature of our minds. Thus when somebody asks me “what do you study in philosophy?” my first thought is to respond with “everything”, and were it not for fear of pretension and the reinforcement of such stereotypes then that would be the response that I would give.
Of course, an obvious line of questioning to follow this revelation is to ask why, then, must we study philosophy if we already have such sects dedicated to the studying of its subsets—i.e. Physics and the sciences for ontology; common knowledge as the basis for epistemology; and psychology and neuroscience as the basis for the mind. In order to understand why philosophy supersedes and underpins all such areas requires a more in-depth look into the branches of philosophy and the questions in which they attempt to discuss and reason. It suffices to say that the philosophy of such areas delves more deeply into the core and fundamental foundations for their studies, all the while done so with an open, astute and logically-driven mind.
A final addendum as to the studying of philosophy comes from my own personal experience in my endeavors towards it. I wholeheartedly believe that, through studying philosophy, you bring forth your own beliefs from the depths of some previously unknown and buried chamber of foundations that underpin your character. In my own experience, these such beliefs have repeatedly been shattered and rebuilt upon more stable foundations with each new reforming. It seems to me that if—in studying philosophy—you have no such experience, then you are either an extremely lucky person in your previously naïve choosing of your beliefs and their remaining intact and true with your new revelations, or you simply have not thought rigorously or with an open mind on the issues that you have decided to analyse and interpret.
I still somewhat hold to this view. However, I read an article/conversation recently that made me think. I would implore you to do the same before responding to this thread (or at the very least read some of the premises of their arguments' standpoints):
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/sep/09/science-philosophy-debate-julian-baggini-lawrence-krauss
Now, perhaps my materialist, atheist and above all optimist mind leads me to the changing of my view, but I feel now that L.M. Krauss has a particularly valid point. Science CAN explain everything, because everything is science. There is nothing outside the reach of science because to suggest so is to suggest that there is something outside the realm of the material (that which science concerns itself with), and as a materialist I struggle to envision there being anything else. The question is: WILL it explain everything? Will our human comprehension of the natural world extend so far that we can be done with the wishy-washy round-about ponderings of philosophy? Will we no longer need to question how consciousness arises? Will we no longer need to question the meaning of all? Will we no longer need to question the mind or psychology? Will we understand everything as its base form: reduced to the material? It clearly can be reduced to what science concerns itself with, but will science be able to explain what philosophy attempts to explain and discover now?
There are already advances in science into areas that philosophy deals with, that we previously may have thought out of the reach of science. Sam Harris in The Moral Landscape (http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Moral-Landscape-Sam-Harris/dp/0552776386/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1377452553&sr=8-1&keywords=sam+harris+the+moral+landscape) argues that science can prove objective morality. Imagine that, that morality is no longer left to the subjectivity of philosophical reason or the objectivity of religious absolutism.
I guess this then raises the question of whether or not, even if science is one day able to answer all of philosophy's questions, will it be practical and pragmatic to? Or will we gain quicker, easier and just as useful results from philosophy?
So, in summary:
- Are all philosophical questions within the boundaries of the natural world?
- Will science one day be able to explain and answer these philosophical questions?
- Will it be practical or pragmatic for science to do so? Will philosophy be just as good of an answer as science could ever be?
My opinion? Yes, philosophical questions are within the boundaries of the natural world, yes science will one day be able to answer all, and on the last question I am simply not sure. I would also like to point out and stress (perhaps I should have mentioned this earlier on in my explanation/argument) that in my opinion philosophy is still useful regardless of whether or not it will one day be replaced by science. We still need something of practical value for now, when science cannot answer all. I suppose those last 3 questions are a bit of a non sequitur from the main question as to how useful philosophy is, so perhaps you should consider them as 2 sub-topics.
____________________________________________________
I'm not very good at presenting these thread, but hopefully you understand what I'm getting at, thanks.