# Practical use of philosophy?



## day_dreamer (Nov 8, 2010)

I was wondering the other day as to why do we need philosophy. I see the 'S' types happy in their ignorance about philosophical/abstract stuff which has no relation to day to day affair or any future application. That makes me think that they are being more sensible than NTs by concentrating on what is present than digging into what "might" be present/true.

If science can discover the truth then why do we need to ponder on unproven hypothesis (read philosophy) based only on observation and which has practically no use in real life?

I might be missing some perspective here, but I am open to reasoning.


----------



## Pelao (Apr 24, 2011)

IMO, it isn't philosophy itself that is worth the study, but the study of the philosophy that really contributes in everyday life. Ethics, critical thinking, morality, existence, etc... Studying these all help with understanding oneself better, and thus understanding a bit more about other people. Yes, 'S' types may not be concerned with some of these trivial things, but to be able to break down an action and attempt to objectively (yes, it is still subjective) place it in perspective is something that many 'S' types (or any type) could not do.

So in conclusion, it isn't about finding an unknown truth, but to expand the capabilities of the human mind to find unknown truths, which could very well be found with the natural sciences once you have a direction in which to look.

P.S.- IDK if it's normal with 'P' or 'NTP' or whatever, but the more we talk about this the more we will get to the bottom of it. Consider my message above to be simply an abstract, and to discover the truth we just need an open dialogue. 'Tis all for now


----------



## TheBoss (Oct 27, 2011)

The 5 actual branches of philosophy (because googling will confuse you up with newly made up ones) are:
Ethics
Aesthetics
Metaphysics
Physics (epistemology)
LOGIC

Every single branch guides through learning of how exactly to manage your brain, to think as objectively as possible. With induction, how to reach the true through your own presumably superb (if honed) mental & physical processes. 
In gross short, makes one smarter.

A couple out of the countless reasons we need philosophy. For one, we want it. Philosophy means 'wisdom friend' and every single inquiring mind is a philosopher.
Secondly, Logic (above the laughable 101 courses), without it maths disappear and in sequence so do all and any sciences fundamentally in need/incorporating of maths.

Philosophy does not answer the big questions. Provides one the tools needed to answer them though.


----------



## day_dreamer (Nov 8, 2010)

Hmm... both of you have good points. But philosophy is vastly unproven or refuted with other philosophies which is confusing, instead of discovering the truth. There are many branches of philosophy which is rational/reasonable and yet contrasting with other rational philosophies. When all of them are rational/reasonable, which one do I choose for forming the bases of my ethics, morality or existence?

For example, I have some certain ideas and conceptions about life which are the building blocks of my character/ethics and morals. When I read about solipsism and tried to conceive it as true for even a moment, it felt like my whole world established so far is about to collapse. It's principles were very reasonable yet vastly different from what I had so far observed to be true in life and have applied. Now do I redefine my ethics/morals/understanding of existence based on a logical but unproven theory or carry on believing what I see everyday? 

Science would have given me a definite answer, but philosophy ruined my life.


----------



## Palaver (Jan 5, 2010)

day_dreamer said:


> I was wondering the other day as to why do we need philosophy.


Can philosophy even be discarded? Science, mathematics, religion, law, language, truth, etc. What we know now began with philosophy.

Are you also not asking what is the _utility_ of philosophy? This itself is a philosophical undertaking.

You may be positioning yourself with the philosophical school of positivism, which claims that metaphysical and theological statements are meaningless and that verifiable knowledge produced via the scientific method is superior.

Of course, metaphysical statements persist. We do not know enough about the human mind to dismiss those thoughts as "nonsense". Clearly, the positivist should wait on the research before dismissing its implications.


----------



## gaudy316 (Nov 19, 2010)

day_dreamer said:


> I was wondering the other day as to why do we need philosophy. I see the 'S' types happy in their ignorance about philosophical/abstract stuff which has no relation to day to day affair or any future application. That makes me think that they are being more sensible than NTs by concentrating on what is present than digging into what "might" be present/true.
> 
> If science can discover the truth then why do we need to ponder on unproven hypothesis (read philosophy) based only on observation and which has practically no use in real life?
> 
> I might be missing some perspective here, but I am open to reasoning.


Such a great question! But let's say you know the answer to some of longest enduring philosophical questions, such as God's existence or non-existence, purpose of life, where are the nearest aliens (if there are any), number of parallel universes, etc. Does your life change after that? As an INFP, my answer is no, and I am very interested in some topics of philosophy as well. Like @Pelao said, I think everyone should be open to ethics and critical thinking. Applied philosophy is good to make the world a better place, but these days, people with power are more concerned with their own immediate well-being.


----------



## EyeInTeaPea (Nov 3, 2011)

Without philosophy the large hadron collider would have no real practical use.


----------



## M1R4G3 (Aug 21, 2011)

Giving it some thought, philosophy is a base to almost all understanding. Philosophy itself is simply hypothesis of why things are as they are. Philosophy is an effort to make sense of all that is and will be. I'm sure at some point, someone did consider science a form of philosophy because science, in its earlier methods, was used to make sense of what we didn't or couldn't understand. 

I don't believe you are right when you say that it has no relation to any future applications. In truth I think it's one of the only things that inspire any future applications to come to fruition. If one never questioned whether or not something should be done, we would likely still be living like they did in the middle ages, if not probably even further back then that. It would be kind of strange to think that we could go anywhere if at some point someone didn't think, "Why does it have to be like this?"


----------



## Protagoras (Sep 12, 2010)

This is why I dislike positivism... science here, science there... I'm getting sick of that empty, dogmatic, unenlightened rhetoric. Science is beautiful and a real force for progress, but it's also a child of philosophy. The axioms and methods on which science is based are philosophical in nature. Actually, science is in many aspects just another subject within the philosophical library. For example, science is based on the principle of a certain consistency that appears to be inherent to our reality, that is to say: if the laws of nature that govern our being now are not governing our being tomorrow, then science will simply cease to work as a way of explaining our being. This is a simple epistemological principle that is reached through analysing our experiences and critically evaluating them, which is a philosophical way of understanding. The same can be said of mathematics and logic, which were originally just subjects of philosophy, and which still are related to philosophy in certain fundamental ways. Therefore, I think it is more likely to be the other way around, that it is critical thinking, and thus philosophy, that leads us to find our truths; not science. Science is just an application of critical thinking, but it isn't pure thought.


----------



## CosmicJalapeno (Sep 27, 2011)

The only use I have for philosophy, like anything else I choose to partake in, is that it is something that keeps me occupied whilst in the midst of a mundane and meaningless system.


----------



## Protagoras (Sep 12, 2010)

CosmicJalapeno said:


> The only use I have for philosophy, like anything else I choose to partake in, is that it is something that keeps me occupied whilst in the midst of a mundane and meaningless system.


lol, and this is why I dislike absolute forms of nihilism, it's often way too negative about the numerous possibilities to make something of yourself through mental discipline. Don't get me wrong, I subscribe to your idea of meaninglessness, but I think one can create meaning by living life passionately; this seems to be an idea to which you are very much opposed. To live life as though it was utterly meaningless appears to me as an ethos of inferiority, even though I agree that there is no _absolute_ meaning to be found in life. Why do you believe the system is completely devoid of meaning? Or do you agree with me, but are you very much pessimistic about, and beaten down by, the socio-economic conditions with which we must live, and which you may believe to be unalterable? If so, why?


----------



## elixare (Aug 26, 2010)

It is not philosophy in and of itself that has practical use (with exception of logic, which is VERY useful). It's all the other disciplines whose derivation depends on philosophy that have immense practical use, Mathematics being one excellent example.


----------



## CosmicJalapeno (Sep 27, 2011)

Elwood92 said:


> lol, and this is why I dislike absolute forms of nihilism, it's often way too negative about the numerous possibilities to make something of yourself through mental discipline. Don't get me wrong, I subscribe to your idea of meaninglessness, but I think one can create meaning by living life passionately; this seems to be an idea to which you are very much opposed. To live life as though it was utterly meaningless appears to me as an ethos of inferiority, even though I agree that there is no _absolute_ meaning to be found in life. Why do you believe the system is completely devoid of meaning? Or do you agree with me, but are you very much pessimistic about, and beaten down by, the socio-economic conditions with which we must live, and which you may believe to be unalterable? If so, why?


I agree to a certain extent. I do create happiness on my own via the actions I do everyday (ie talk to friends, read, write, and to a lesser extent drink everyday though the drinking can be seen as more of a problem that may become detrimental to my happiness at some point, but I don't care, fuck my liver). That is not to say I feel like this adds meaning into my life. I think such is impossible, but I'm not some depressed (though I am depressed at the same time but in a different way) emo kid drawing scars on my wrists. I create a tolerable experience for myself within the intolerable emptiness of existence. And yeah I also dislike society and all of the social contracts to which I am expected to fulfill yet never agreed to.


----------



## randomness123 (Mar 28, 2011)

Well, it's probably pretty useful in politics. Also, in terms of religious philosophy, it can help you decide how to live your life. Thirdly, encouraging people to _think_ leads to loads of other good stuff.


----------



## Kylar (Nov 8, 2011)

day_dreamer said:


> I was wondering the other day as to why do we need philosophy. I see the 'S' types happy in their ignorance about philosophical/abstract stuff which has no relation to day to day affair or any future application. That makes me think that they are being more sensible than NTs by concentrating on what is present than digging into what "might" be present/true.
> 
> If science can discover the truth then why do we need to ponder on unproven hypothesis (read philosophy) based only on observation and which has practically no use in real life?
> 
> I might be missing some perspective here, but I am open to reasoning.


Philosophy is the important for NT's to develop strong convictions and good personalities.


----------



## Protagoras (Sep 12, 2010)

CosmicJalapeno said:


> I agree to a certain extent. I do create happiness on my own via the actions I do everyday (ie talk to friends, read, write, and to a lesser extent drink everyday though the drinking can be seen as more of a problem that may become detrimental to my happiness at some point, but I don't care, fuck my liver). That is not to say I feel like this adds meaning into my life. I think such is impossible, but I'm not some depressed (though I am depressed at the same time but in a different way) emo kid drawing scares on my wrists. I create a tolerable experience for myself within the intolerable emptiness of existence. And yeah I also dislike society and all of the social contracts to which I am expected to fulfill yet never agreed to.


I sympathize with certain aspects of your outlook on life, because I use similar frameworks of understanding. However, I also have very different ideas about the nature of meaninglessness than you seem to have, since I don't think of 'happiness' or 'tolerable experiences' as tools for creating value. I used to think happiness was at the heart of the good life, but I gave up on that ideas because I felt it made me weak. Now, this idea of 'happiness' might work for you, and it might give you some consolation, but I still think that a morality of happiness is a morality of the weak and the inferior. A life of happiness and pleasure is often a life of stagnation, since a happy and fulfilled man does not challenge himself; he merely accepts his limitations as inevitable, and he often does not accept his own freedom and, with it, his responsibilities. 

That is not what I want my life to be, I want to work in order to mentally improve and enrich myself. I don't want to end up being the guy who stays wilfully ignorant of his potential, for his entire life, with the excuse that life was meaningless to begin with. Of course there isn't any apparent meaning to life, but that does not warrant me to sit back and act as though nothing matters. I mean, what if there was meaning to be found or created by exploring the possibilities that the self-satisfied man never wanted to consider? What then? Wouldn't that self-satisfied man seem like a fool to you? Probably even more so than the man who spends his life chasing after the illusion of grandeur. After all, it is the illusion of grandeur that makes great men as splendid and transcending as they are. Now, these ideas might seem like existential madness to a critical philosopher, but I believe it is the most realistic way to look at life. This type of philosophy offers me a sense of self-actualization and challenge; even a sense of meaning, while acknowledging the initial and objective meaninglessness of existence. 

If these social contracts bother you, then why don't you try to change them? Why give up before having explored all possibilities? You recognize the meaninglessness of existence, so why don't you try constructing your own meaning? Isn't this the perfect opportunity to do so? If there is no objective and absolute meaning, then you are free to create your own interpretation, your own values and your own meaning. Why do you not agree with this? It seems so obvious to me, but I may be mistaken. Please consider the ideas I have presented here and tell me why you disagree with them (since you seem to disagree). It would be fascinating to read more about your ideas regarding absolute meaninglessness.


----------



## Extraverted Delusion (Oct 23, 2011)

day_dreamer said:


> I was wondering the other day as to why do we need philosophy. I see the 'S' types happy in their ignorance about philosophical/abstract stuff which has no relation to day to day affair or any future application. That makes me think that they are being more sensible than NTs by concentrating on what is present than digging into what "might" be present/true.
> 
> If science can discover the truth then why do we need to ponder on unproven hypothesis (read philosophy) based only on observation and which has practically no use in real life?
> 
> I might be missing some perspective here, but I am open to reasoning.


Because philosophy is the Ne of science.

Use yours, br0.


----------



## Kylar (Nov 8, 2011)

day_dreamer said:


> Hmm... both of you have good points. But philosophy is vastly unproven or refuted with other philosophies which is confusing, instead of discovering the truth. There are many branches of philosophy which is rational/reasonable and yet contrasting with other rational philosophies. When all of them are rational/reasonable, which one do I choose for forming the bases of my ethics, morality or existence?
> 
> For example, I have some certain ideas and conceptions about life which are the building blocks of my character/ethics and morals. When I read about solipsism and tried to conceive it as true for even a moment, it felt like my whole world established so far is about to collapse. It's principles were very reasonable yet vastly different from what I had so far observed to be true in life and have applied. Now do I redefine my ethics/morals/understanding of existence based on a logical but unproven theory or carry on believing what I see everyday?
> 
> Science would have given me a definite answer, but philosophy ruined my life.


HA! I know what mean. I don't read too much philosophy yet for that very reason. The only book I have ever based my ideas off of is the Art of War, the essays the Dharma translation group wrote on the Art of War (a publishing company), and Nietzsche's works. I once read Plato's stuff but I didn't like it very much. Philosophy can be tested but only if you don't look to hard. You sort of just have to know whether it is right or not.

Philosophy provides a vision, that in of itself makes it useful. Without a vision it is hard to influence other human beings.


----------



## Kylar (Nov 8, 2011)

Elwood92 said:


> I sympathize with certain aspects of your outlook on life, because I use similar frameworks of understanding. However, I also have very different ideas about the nature of meaninglessness than you seem to have, since I don't think of 'happiness' or 'tolerable experiences' as tools for creating value. I used to think happiness was at the heart of the good life, but I gave up on that ideas because I felt it made me weak. Now, this idea of 'happiness' might work for you, and it might give you some consolation, but I still think that a morality of happiness is a morality of the weak and the inferior. A life of happiness and pleasure is often a life of stagnation, since a happy and fulfilled man does not challenge himself; he merely accepts his limitations as inevitable, and he often does not accept his own freedom and, with it, his responsibilities.
> 
> That is not what I want my life to be, I want to work in order to mentally improve and enrich myself. I don't want to end up being the guy who stays wilfully ignorant of his potential, for his entire life, with the excuse that life was meaningless to begin with. Of course there isn't any apparent meaning to life, but that does not warrant me to sit back and act as though nothing matters. I mean, what if there was meaning to be found or created by exploring the possibilities that the self-satisfied man never wanted to consider? What then? Wouldn't that self-satisfied man seem like a fool to you? Probably even more so than the man who spends his life chasing after the illusion of grandeur. After all, it is the illusion of grandeur that makes great men as splendid and transcending as they are. Now, these ideas might seem like existential madness to a critical philosopher, but I believe it is the most realistic way to look at life. This type of philosophy offers me a sense of self-actualization and challenge; even a sense of meaning, while acknowledging the initial and objective meaninglessness of existence.
> 
> If these social contracts bother you, then why don't you try to change them? Why give up before having explored all possibilities? You recognize the meaninglessness of existence, so why don't you try constructing your own meaning? Isn't this the perfect opportunity to do so? If there is no objective and absolute meaning, then you are free to create your own interpretation, your own values and your own meaning. Why do you not agree with this? It seems so obvious to me, but I may be mistaken. Please consider the ideas I have presented here and tell me why you disagree with them (since you seem to disagree). It would be fascinating to read more about your ideas regarding absolute meaninglessness.


I like what you wrote so much I am stealing it, recording it and sending you a friend request.

Don't worry I won't use it to make money directly.


----------



## Kylar (Nov 8, 2011)

Elwood92 said:


> I sympathize with certain aspects of your outlook on life, because I use similar frameworks of understanding. However, I also have very different ideas about the nature of meaninglessness than you seem to have, since I don't think of 'happiness' or 'tolerable experiences' as tools for creating value. I used to think happiness was at the heart of the good life, but I gave up on that ideas because I felt it made me weak. Now, this idea of 'happiness' might work for you, and it might give you some consolation, but I still think that a morality of happiness is a morality of the weak and the inferior. A life of happiness and pleasure is often a life of stagnation, since a happy and fulfilled man does not challenge himself; he merely accepts his limitations as inevitable, and he often does not accept his own freedom and, with it, his responsibilities.
> 
> That is not what I want my life to be, I want to work in order to mentally improve and enrich myself. I don't want to end up being the guy who stays wilfully ignorant of his potential, for his entire life, with the excuse that life was meaningless to begin with. Of course there isn't any apparent meaning to life, but that does not warrant me to sit back and act as though nothing matters. I mean, what if there was meaning to be found or created by exploring the possibilities that the self-satisfied man never wanted to consider? What then? Wouldn't that self-satisfied man seem like a fool to you? Probably even more so than the man who spends his life chasing after the illusion of grandeur. After all, it is the illusion of grandeur that makes great men as splendid and transcending as they are. Now, these ideas might seem like existential madness to a critical philosopher, but I believe it is the most realistic way to look at life. This type of philosophy offers me a sense of self-actualization and challenge; even a sense of meaning, while acknowledging the initial and objective meaninglessness of existence.
> 
> If these social contracts bother you, then why don't you try to change them? Why give up before having explored all possibilities? You recognize the meaninglessness of existence, so why don't you try constructing your own meaning? Isn't this the perfect opportunity to do so? If there is no objective and absolute meaning, then you are free to create your own interpretation, your own values and your own meaning. Why do you not agree with this? It seems so obvious to me, but I may be mistaken. Please consider the ideas I have presented here and tell me why you disagree with them (since you seem to disagree). It would be fascinating to read more about your ideas regarding absolute meaninglessness.


There is meaning in life. Though I will it admit there is no obvious, grand, happy goal, there are rules. These are some rules as I have gathered in my short existence:

-People are not happy unless they have control over something.
-To resist the laws of human nature leads to depression, anxiety, and death.
-Unless you get other people to trust you. You will find enemies and obstacles everywhere. Cooperation is needed.
-Humans are not programmed to help anyone out directly, unless they have a reason.
-Failure to learn from ones mistakes leads to pain.
-Trial and error is the great machine of progress. Don't assume anyone can just figure out a solution and call it a day. 
-Most humans want a leader to tell them what is right and what to do.
-All humans need to taste real victory before they can lull in to happiness. Or it will be illusionary.
-Humans can tell whether you have powerful character or not at a glance. Faking it doesn't help. Nor does boasting.
-All humans seek only three things: Power, immortality, and to avoid loss.
-Power is the ability to control your environment. It is the main drive not the other two. People will risk their lives for more power.
-Immortality is manifested most strongly in the desire for sex. And the behaviour of forcing others to change.
-Avoiding loss is shown through our fear of death, embarrassment, and our doubts and apathy. And hunger.
-Brainpower is all about retention and use. It does a man no good to just think or feel someway once. He must make the useful parts he finds a solid part of his being through constant reinforcement or he will lose what he has gathered.
-Don't avoid your Id
-Make your super-ego under your command and shape it yourself.
-Competition is pointless because every person controls their environment in different ways and so you can't test for them all equally.

I can, I think, prove all of these things as true with some evidence.
What does it all mean then? If we assume these to be facts.
It means that the meaning to life is a will to power. To become and develop what you are. I don't like many (or all) religions (I used to study them intensively) because they are often suggest that people resist the laws of human nature. (though I used to agree with them). Now, there is something to be said for putting a limit on expansive aggression, and for helping others. But nobody can be a good person without having first achieved an individual course to power. Negative emotions will always spring up without previous conquest.

That's it, I'm done. I've already wrote too much.

Excuse my masculine perspective I think these rules apply to females too.


----------



## Protagoras (Sep 12, 2010)

Kylar said:


> -Make your super-ego under your command and shape it yourself.


This! This is what I mean! We must create our own ethos. We shouldn't let society instil rules into our lives; into our being. It seems most people are still living in this fantasy world in which they need strong father figures and leaders to tell them how to behave. This is no more than a childish herd instinct; as is the kind of absolute nihilism that I mean to attack, which isn't much more than the intellectual toy of spoiled children. The apathetic nihilism of our time, and the hedonism that it encourages, is an illness that will eventually lead us to become no more than a species of ignorant children huddled together in a corner where it is warm, but where no light shines. And this situation will eventually lead to more herd behaviour. In their confusion, the nihilists will eventually look for yet another strong leader and, in doing so, they will become the very thing they rebelled against. 

To take possession of one's mind, of one's dreams and of one's ideals is the only way out. It's great to read your post and realize that I am not the only one who still considers these possibilities.

*EDIT: hmm, from Comte to Nietzsche/Freud in only three pages... we're making progress. *


----------



## Sammiches (Oct 14, 2011)

Without philosophy there would be no liberalism and certainly no socialism.

I'd say at least one of those has been useful, no?


----------



## day_dreamer (Nov 8, 2010)

Hmmm...... so from what I read so far, philosophy is the predecessor of all discoveries and modern theories?


----------



## Sammiches (Oct 14, 2011)

Philosophying(spelling? even a word?) about different things lead to breakthroughs in different situations. One example could be partnership without marriage, which was seen as wrong earlier, but now it is the norm to live together before getting married. The same thing with same-sex partnership and, more importantly in today's society, same-sex marriage was brought up by philosophers. Now, it's not philosophy that actually makes this happen directly, but a single philosopher, or group of, asks the question "should it be this way?" to which more people can respond with reflection and discussion, which may lead to changes.


----------

