[removed]

That tweet is exactly something the sophists would say in ancient Greece and Rome, and for many the sophists aren't even real philosophers. Surely, it is useful to obtain certain life skills, and you can certainly learn a lot by reading about philosophy, philosophical literature as well as writing philosophical pieces. Philosophy doesn't aim to be useful necesarilly, but it is exactly that which does make it useful.

In fact, I would argue that if it were to make "usefulness" a priority it would become useless, or at least absurd. This is even true with mathematics for example. It aims to observe the world as it is and the equations that have come up through history weren't always useful in the time they were written down, but they were very much useful later down the line. Certainly, usefulness depends on context.

If it were to aim at being "useful", this is something that would either naturally be abandoned as it progresses or something that would stunt its growth.

Furthermore, when we talk about usefulness there's an understanding that something is useful to someone which indicates a personal interest, so the moral implications of the idea that philosophy is a tool for someone's personal interest are ridiculous.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. :)

Why should a person’s aims not be “too ambitious”?

The objective of a philosopher is to teach philosophy.

That means to help other people come to a love of knowledge.

Knowledge in this circumstance shares in virtue, and in this sense is an end to be sought persons.

I believe this is the correct answer for most vocations with minor variation, i.e. politician, poet, etc.

Edit: it should read “and in this sense is an end to be sought by all persons.”

And those philosophers who only know one truth or claim not to know anything?

We agree with this heartily.

The moment one begins crafting something so that others will approve of it, one has valued the approval of others over the commitment to what one is creating.

Fear of disapproval is sneaky, and motivates the ego toward reaction, which can subtly poison one's entire effort.

Make what you make, discover your own path, and if others follow it... then it has value to them, because they decided it does. Not because you worried about whether it would.

...see username

Just to add a caveat, math's purpose isn't necessarily to describe the world as it is. That description seems to conflate math with physics, which is intended to describe reality as we observe it.

Maybe the specific tweet is meant to show how some philosophical ideas may lead to destructive or outright wrong views of the world, thus giving us the clarity to find alternatives ideas to help guide our decisions.

I usually try to make up nonsense then logically defend it

"Even though philosophy and psychology headlines are often meaningless, writers should at least aim at presenting some meaning through them because meaning makes things important."

Honestly, I'm convinced it must be some algorithm spitting out these headlines and not an actual human being..

I think it means philosophy should make you stop and questions. If someone is 100 percent correct in the idea of philosophy it defeats the very reason of its excistence. For its ment to open up your mind to new perspectives new ways of thinking. Clearly one way is not the only way.

yeah, I probably should’ve left it at: “even if they never get it right, philosophers should still aim to” but I got carried away 😂

Most philosophers know nothing, and those philosophers who know one truth would use that one truth as a starting point to teaching others same truth, and the love of knowledge.

I must say, I am surprised at the -2 on that comment. The typo cannot have helped.

Edit: I meant “know nothing” in the Socratic fashion, which Is a very good place to be, relative to believing you know something and being mistaken.

Asking questions has always been a bit part of philosophy. A question is not right or wrong by itself. And although being absolutely right is rather impossible, trying to maintain the highest accuracy when stating fact is of utmost importance for basically anyone, moreso for philosopher...

However, when handling hypothesis, I would agree that the usefulness of a statement is more important than its accuracy. For many reasons, though.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

We note "physics" & "philosophy" are functionally identical, yet only one is considered worthy of respect in academia.

Isn't that the point?

Who defines what right is? If it's impossible to know the goal then how can you ever achieve it?

They could have egomaniacal intent.

You would think.

I have never heard a mathematician ever say that mathematics' task or aim is to observe the world as it is.

Well this was specifically about philosophy and the idea of "being right", not about "a person's aims".

It can result in confirmation bias, for one thing

Who is this "we"?

You and...?

To me "being usefully wrong" appears same as "being practically right".And many a time "being practically right" can be much superior to being right idealogically.

Knowledge for knowledge's sake!

[removed]

[removed]

Frankish is a fool. Textbook definition.

Philosophy is "love of wisdom ". Wisdom is that knowledge which can only be had in the light of all experience. And knowledge can be either subjective (reletive to an individual's mind), or objectively true (for all people, demonstratable to the 5 senses and mind of all).

So the entire purpose of philosophy, is to find truth. To find what is real, to all human beings. Philosophy reveals objective and universal truths.

But a person who has teleologically resigned themselves to the moral reletavism of secular post modernism, by definition, denies and can never find, truth.

They end up "begging the question" towards their own foolishness. They become reletavistic animals, who run on self interest, alone.

You should enter politics

Who are the "we"? While I value philosophy, it's not identical to physics in any shape or form in ways that concern academics.

"All models are wrong, but some are useful"

• Demming

I am extremely political actually. My main work involves attempting to abolish taxes and defending the thought of Ayn Rand.

Philosophy, for me, is a tool that involves using logical reason to promote and defend one's egotistical interests.

Excess ambition of certain kinds can get one suicided in some cases. :(

> Honestly, I'm convinced it must be some algorithm spitting out these headlines and not an actual human being

Implying humans aren't also ~algorithm driven....

Belief is a very powerful tool that humans have in their kit.

Philosophy is literally "the study of everything".

Physics is the study of how everything works.

They are both speculations rooted in subjective observations in an attempt to understand reality. That you feel there is a difference between these things is... curious.

What differences do you see in the two subjects?

Scientific method? In simple terms Physics is a natural science and philosophy is not.

"Natural science" is an artificial label, a distinction without definition in this context.

To phrase it more plainly for you, what makes physics a "natural science" and philosophy... not?

Suspect it's merely the grouping conventions of the current educational system with which you are aware.

That? Is not logical reasoning - it would be bias... so we hope there is more to your position than "Someone told me so".

"Implying humans aren't also ~algorithm driven...."

No that's your interpretation. I was referencing algorithms that aren't humans.. hence the "AND NOT an actual human being" part of my comment.

I don't know who is the we you keep talking about but what makes your words any different than "someone"? I am just going with what is widely accepted in acedemia. As for what makes natural science different from something like philosophy, in natural sciences you have to be able to demonstrate your findings in real life to prove what you are putting forward to be true. In philosophy only requirement is that your proposed argument have to make sense in context of the system of thinking that you have put forward. You generally can't really prove your point with observable facts in philosophy and even if you are somehow able to that just means you have gone beyond what is expected of you as that is not a hard requirement. Don't even get started with artificial label bullshit. Once you go there there is no reason to argue anymore as everything can argued to be artificial and it just makes the waters muddy. You are talking as something can't both be biased and logical. Everything we think, say and do are biased so you are not in a position to argue what is logical or not.

"In philosophy only requirement is that your proposed argument have to make sense in context of the system of thinking that you have put forward. You generally can't really prove your point with observable facts in philosophy and even if you are somehow able to that just means you have gone beyond what is expected of you as that is not a hard requirement."

So the difference is that you set lower standards for aspiring philosophers than for aspiring physicists, and the problem is somehow with the field?

You said earlier you respect philosophy as much as physics, yet you appear not to give credence to philosophy as being as intellectually rigorous as physics when it comes to substantiating its positions with evidence - this is why you see it as being less definitive, appparently.

Yet even when philosophers prove their point - demonstrable evidence - you seem to think that's exceeding the expectations of philosophy... because people haven't practiced doing anything different.

Labeling anything a "natural science" is a difference made by people without explaining it - if you're just doing what somebody else told you to without understanding why, you're probably not a good guide, just an obedient one.

"Everything we think, say and do are biased so you are not in a position to argue what is logical or not."

Perceptions are biased; choices need not be. Your lack of ability and/or imagination in no way applies to others, so perhaps this perceived "impossibility" is just a limitation of yours?

>Physics is the study of how everything works.

Does it encompass the metaphysical realm?

>So the difference is that you set lower standards for aspiring philosophers than for aspiring physicists, and the problem is somehow with the field?

Physics is known to be deterministic, metaphysics seems to be otherwise. So, different approaches may be appropriate.

I realize that. I believe you may have missed my point.

That is a good question.

Metaphysical is still part of 'everything', innit? Way we see it, physics cannot study or discuss what it does not experience, yet it can - and ought to - acknowledge the possibilities. The blindspot of any thought-science devised by sentients is that sentients' own inability to address that which is can not detect, yet may exist anyway (i.e., Dark Matter/Energy).

How a scientist meets the unknown reveals a lot about the habits they've been practicing - absolutism has few places of validity; in real science, anything may be challenged, and often is.

Differing approaches are fine; differing levels of credibility ought to have actual, articulable reasons beyond " I am just going with what is widely accepted in acedemia." - because academics makes mistakes too.

Obedience does not bring victory, & calibraka may want to understand that before echoing what they were told without reflecting on whether it was accurate, perhaps?

> Differing approaches are fine;

Opinions vary, and strongly!

>... differing levels of credibility ought to have actual, articulable reasons beyond " I am just going with what is widely accepted in acedemia." - because academics makes mistakes too.

Many do, but aren't widely distributed. And that which is not known has a way of appearing to not exist.

> Obedience does not bring victory, & calibraka may want to understand that before echoing what they were told without reflecting on whether it was accurate, perhaps?

Shall we ask of others that which we cannot do ourselves?

> Metaphysical is still part of 'everything', innit?

Opinions vary. A lot of people (some of them otherwise genuinely "smart") seem to believe that it does not even exist, that it "is" "woo woo".

> Way we see it, physics cannot study or discuss what it does not experience, yet it can - and ought to - acknowledge the possibilities.

No disagreement here, but the fan base seems to have not gotten the message. Maybe that scientists rarely knowledge that science does not even try to study the entirety of reality (while often implying that it does) has something to do with it. Personally, I doubt most scientists even have a strong understanding of the genuine complexity involved.

> in real science, anything may be challenged, and often is

I wonder how much real science still exists on the planet. It's an interesting idea to contemplate.

Perhaps..

It's possible to find out, but not mandatory.

Belief and subjective truth or both only important to those who agree with you. Would you say is belief I call superstition. There's a great science experiment that was done with pigeons and a randomly dropping piece of food now if the pigeon was turning around as the piece of food dropped it will continue to turn around again and again and again and same direction and then when the food drops again it reinforces that belief even though it's completely random