Chatting to a friend yesterday who's very much into philosophy, questioning his existence, etc. He brings up interesting ideas.

I find I usually don't question things on a philosophical level as much. Basically, if there's no evidence and logic for some given statement, nor some concrete example or experience I can repeat, or some other way of making it real - I tend to think, guiltily, that it's just a waste of time ruminating about it.

Example: What is the nature of existence? My answer: I only care about the evidence, mathematics and what I can experience around me. What can I possibly learn from idly thinking about things I can't even test/calculate/act upon?

If it amuses you: yes.

If it doesn't amuse you: no.

If only to be able to recognise pseudo-philosophers.

That is very good philosophical question ;)

Yes, it is. First we must define our terms. What is "philosophy"? Once we've nailed that down (probably in about 2027) we'll move on to a discussion of "worth". Ooo - that's a tough one, we'll get into all sorts of things, ethics, morality, relativism, and many, many more!

Order now and we'll also send you a FREE copy of our newest philosophical treatise, "Who the fuck is that dude in the cave and what's he doing there?". Pay only separate shipping and handling.

Philosophy is worth bothering with if you want to get into discussions with other philosophers or about philosophy.

As a method of learning anything - no, it's fucking useless as hell, right up there with religion as a method of determining "truth" and discerning "reality" (for which it has its own special meanings not accessible except through philosophy - evidencing a huge part of the problem.)

Whether we like it and/or admit it or not perhaps everyone engages in philosophy. As laklak is on roll today, what is philosophy? Some more often than others, some in more sophisticated ways than others, some put more importance to it than others, etc.

How about as a method of training? Training brain to work with abstract ideas in specific way. Its no coincidence, there is strong historic link between philosophy and mathematics.

There's a strong historical link between religion and morality, and religious studies were often cited as a necessary step in learning to think about morals - but it isn't.

Likewise, there are other ways to learn to think without the navel-gazing masturbation of philosophy.

Weaver wrote:There's a strong historical link between religion and morality, and religious studies were often cited as a necessary step in learning to think about morals - but it isn't.

Likewise, there are other ways to learn to think without the navel-gazing masturbation of philosophy.

One thing philosophy is useful for is analysing people's arguments, including your own and whether they're valid.

How to think and not what to think.

BTW Interesting fact; if you click on the first link in any Wikipedia article, then click on the first link in that article and so on and so on, invariably you end up at 'Philosophy'

Weaver wrote:There's a strong historical link between religion and morality, and religious studies were often cited as a necessary step in learning to think about morals - but it isn't.

Likewise, there are other ways to learn to think without the navel-gazing masturbation of philosophy.

You repeat learn and add to think. Of course there are other ways as there of course are other ways how to do fuck all with regards to learning to think. Like watching TV or chit-chatting or I dunno lifting.

The question was .. is it worth bothering with? Is it worth bothering with going to gym? Of course there are other ways how to keep fit.

tuco wrote:How about as a method of training? Training brain to work with abstract ideas in specific way. Its no coincidence, there is strong historic link between philosophy and mathematics.

I think that link is just math-envy.

I've noticed, if I may personal remark, you are being funny lately, actually quite funny. However, I am not sure if its worth bothering to address your remark now ;)

Of course math is the master. Everyone knows that chemists are those who could not handle the math of physics, biologists who could not handle chemistry, etc etc and the end are management, marketing and economics.

And of course, I did not make up the remark.

tuco wrote:However, I am not sure if its worth bothering to address your remark now

I think you just did, tuco. You gave it everything you have, and that's enough.

Its close to reality to say that I do not have much. I could say that same about you: You always give everything you have, and that counts, but where will we go from here? To chit-chat.

I'm going to the beach bar, I don't know about y'all. Time for beer and fried shit, and I will contemplate the serenity of nature and probably get shat on by a seagull. There's a philosophical conundrum for you.

I cant drink because when I do the only conundrum I have is how to unlock limits on my card through online-banking app lol

Yeah, let's not bother with philosophy because we already know that science explains everything, even though it doesn't; and we already know that 'reality' is material, even though we don't; and we already know that God doesn't exist because science makes a mockery of literal interpretations of the bible, even though the bible and similar spiritual text was never meant to be read literally; and let's just ignore the whole of philosophy because it hasn't made one darn bit of difference to politics and social change, even though it has; and let's also just pretend that science wasn't borne of philosophy, as neither were maths/logic nor any other activity requiring of considered rational thought.

Even the question pertaining to the thread's title is requiring of a philosophical answer, so if you don't want to bother then don't expect an answer to such a ridiculous question.

Philosophy, even erroneous philosophy, underpins almost everything that humans do. If you don't want to bother then the jungle beckons.

It doesn't though.