Philosophy...

[colubridae]

...What's the fucking point? Who benefits from it and how?

Ultimately, mankind benefits through an increase in collective knowledge, learning and analysis truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct as well as the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, especially with a view to improving or reconstituting them.

Any individual who tries to learn about the truths and principles concerning our "being" (how and why we're here), our "knowledge" (how we know what we know) and/or "conduct" (what is right to do and what is wrong to do) is philosophizing. He or she benefits from philosophy by learning or attempting to learn these things.

So it's like finking innit?

Yes, all philosophizing involves thinking, but not all thinking requires philosophizing.

Thinking about how we know what we know = philosophizing. Thinking about boobies, not so much.

What about what we know about boobies? I'm just spitballing here.

[Coito ergo sum]

...What's the fucking point? Who benefits from it and how?

Ultimately, mankind benefits through an increase in collective knowledge, learning and analysis truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct as well as the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, especially with a view to improving or reconstituting them.

Any individual who tries to learn about the truths and principles concerning our "being" (how and why we're here), our "knowledge" (how we know what we know) and/or "conduct" (what is right to do and what is wrong to do) is philosophizing. He or she benefits from philosophy by learning or attempting to learn these things.

So it's like finking innit?

Yes, all philosophizing involves thinking, but not all thinking requires philosophizing.

Thinking about how we know what we know = philosophizing. Thinking about boobies, not so much.

What about what we know about boobies? I'm just spitballing here.

One may philosophize about boobies. It is, in fact, a discipline I've been working on my whole life. I'm writing a book about it.

The Philosophical Boob
by: Coito E. Sum

Introduction: The Boob
Chapter 1: Of Boobs and Nothingness
Chapter 2: The Quite Bearable Firmness of Boobies
Chapter 3: Zen and the Art of Mammary Maintenance
Chapter 4: I Squeeze Them, Therefore They Are
Chapter 5: Nippleism

You get the picture.....

[colubridae]

I like philosophy

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think philosophers are the atheist version of priests. (Take that any way you wish.)

Even the theist philosophers?

SSDD.

[Epictetus]

It seems like most philosophers spend all their time engaged in hairsplitting, subjecting every argument to a veritable autopsy. It’s a time-consuming, laborious enterprise that calls to mind the aphorism Ars longa, vita brevis. Personally I don’t have the requisite patience for it, and I find that most philosophers are ponderous writers. There are a few exceptions: Nietzsche, for example (though, technically he wasn’t even a philosopher), or Bertrand Russell, or more recently Daniel Dennett.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It seems like most philosophers spend all their time engaged in hairsplitting, subjecting every argument to a veritable autopsy. It’s a time-consuming, laborious enterprise that calls to mind the aphorism Ars longa, vita brevis. Personally I don’t have the requisite patience for it, and I find that most philosophers are ponderous writers. There are a few exceptions: Nietzsche, for example (though, technically he wasn’t even a philosopher), or Bertrand Russell, or more recently Daniel Dennett.

"If it's useful, it's not philosophy."

[VazScep]

"If it's useful, it's not philosophy."

I tend to avoid things I can't find a use for, which covers some of the philosophy I have read. It might even cover most of the philosophical literature out there. However, I've found much of the writing in philosophy of mind and philosophy of mathematics useful, serving as rationalisations to persue certain research programmes and avoid others. I found Richard Rorty useful. He helped me stop taking analytic philosophy seriously, and to start being more playful with language and accept the irony of having convinction in a world that cares little about humans and the sounds they make.

Lots of things are useful though. What I do resent is the idea that philosophy subsumes other subjects, because it has some claim to have spawned them or merely because it has a subfield which claims to be its metanalysis.

[FBM]

We have philosophy to thank for a clear system of critical thought and skepticism. Critical thinking doesn't just spontaneously appear one day in any individual. It's a skill that has to be studied, practiced before it's mastered. Some of us on this forum are better at it than others, and almost any one of us here is better at it than any almost theist, if for no other reason that we apply that critical reasoning to ourselves, our ontology, rather than keeping it distant as an intellectual exercise. The scientific method is an exercise in critical thinking and skepticism that developed out of the works of Aristotle and others. Mathematics, astronomy and most other sciences have their origins in philosophy, way back when those weren't departmentalized into different specializations. Philosophy that can be applied to one's life and guide one's decision-making is not only useful, it's fun, interesting and challenging. Philosophy that's useful for nothing more than crafting words to do combat with another philosopher's carefully crafted words is as useless as tits on a boar hog, and much more annoying.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"If it's useful, it's not philosophy."

I tend to avoid things I can't find a use for, which covers some of the philosophy I have read. It might even cover most of the philosophical literature out there. However, I've found much of the writing in philosophy of mind and philosophy of mathematics useful, serving as rationalisations to persue certain research programmes and avoid others. I found Richard Rorty useful. He helped me stop taking analytic philosophy seriously, and to start being more playful with language and accept the irony of having convinction in a world that cares little about humans and the sounds they make.

Lots of things are useful though. What I do resent is the idea that philosophy subsumes other subjects, because it has some claim to have spawned them or merely because it has a subfield which claims to be its metanalysis.

It really annoys me that philosophers lay claim what is simply thinking about something. It strikes me as very similar to the theists claiming that "God" touches all aspects of my life.

[Coito ergo sum]

It seems like most philosophers spend all their time engaged in hairsplitting, subjecting every argument to a veritable autopsy. It’s a time-consuming, laborious enterprise that calls to mind the aphorism Ars longa, vita brevis. Personally I don’t have the requisite patience for it, and I find that most philosophers are ponderous writers. There are a few exceptions: Nietzsche, for example (though, technically he wasn’t even a philosopher), or Bertrand Russell, or more recently Daniel Dennett.

The absolute KING of ponderous philosophical writers: I nominate J.P. Sartre.

[Coito ergo sum]

It seems like most philosophers spend all their time engaged in hairsplitting, subjecting every argument to a veritable autopsy. It’s a time-consuming, laborious enterprise that calls to mind the aphorism Ars longa, vita brevis. Personally I don’t have the requisite patience for it, and I find that most philosophers are ponderous writers. There are a few exceptions: Nietzsche, for example (though, technically he wasn’t even a philosopher), or Bertrand Russell, or more recently Daniel Dennett.

"If it's NOT useful, it's not GOOD philosophy."

[charlou]

"If it's useful, it's not philosophy."

I tend to avoid things I can't find a use for, which covers some of the philosophy I have read. It might even cover most of the philosophical literature out there. However, I've found much of the writing in philosophy of mind and philosophy of mathematics useful, serving as rationalisations to persue certain research programmes and avoid others. I found Richard Rorty useful. He helped me stop taking analytic philosophy seriously, and to start being more playful with language and accept the irony of having convinction in a world that cares little about humans and the sounds they make.

Lots of things are useful though. What I do resent is the idea that philosophy subsumes other subjects, because it has some claim to have spawned them or merely because it has a subfield which claims to be its metanalysis.

It really annoys me that philosophers lay claim what is simply thinking about something. It strikes me as very similar to the theists claiming that "God" touches all aspects of my life.

Yes, good analogy ... There's a dogmatic aspect to it, too ... and I don't think it's just philosphers and theists who indulge in dogmatic thinking and behaviour.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It seems like most philosophers spend all their time engaged in hairsplitting, subjecting every argument to a veritable autopsy. It’s a time-consuming, laborious enterprise that calls to mind the aphorism Ars longa, vita brevis. Personally I don’t have the requisite patience for it, and I find that most philosophers are ponderous writers. There are a few exceptions: Nietzsche, for example (though, technically he wasn’t even a philosopher), or Bertrand Russell, or more recently Daniel Dennett.

"If it's NOT useful, it's not GOOD philosophy."

Somebody to take you to the vet and have you fixed.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It really annoys me that philosophers lay claim what is simply thinking about something. It strikes me as very similar to the theists claiming that "God" touches all aspects of my life.

Yes, good analogy ... There's a dogmatic aspect to it, too ... and I don't thing it's just philosphers and theists who indulge in dogmatic thinking and behaviour.

I'm waiting for the book Philosophy and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

[Rum]

In its defence, I think it is safe to assume we are the only creatures on the planet who have the capacity to wonder what we are and what it means to be us and what the universe is and how it got here. And perhaps 'why' too. For all we know we are the only creatures in the universe who can (though I don't believe that).

The Greeks managed to scrabble out of the poo of superstition a little and create rules for formal logic and structures reasoned thinking. It is quite an achievement when you think about it.

Whether it amounts to a hill of beans at the end of the day is another matter I suppose.