Why do people waste time with philosophy?

Question

Science asks objective questions and then attempts to answer them. Philosophy simply makes subjective statements and couldn't care less whether they're true, or even applicable to the real world in any way at all. An individual who focuses on science learns much about the world and his fellow man. An individual who focuses on philosophy learns a little about himself. A nation that focuses on science improves its military and economic strength and its people's quality of life. A nation that focuses on philosophy remains backwards until conquered, educated, and shown the error of its ways by its developed neighbors.

Answer 1

If one were to define philosophy as 'everything,' then it would be valid to argue that philosophy can make subjective statements despite their validity in the real world, however supposing this is the real world. Science is a strong competitor against philosophy, nevertheless philosophy of science raises various questions about science. These, for example, are should politics influence science? How should we spend limited research funds? Is it ethical to benefit from clearly unethical research sources? These objections to science are based on both the ethical aspect of philosophy as well as science. Philosophy does also talk a lot about the self and what we are. Philosophy's main questions are who am i? where am i? what am i? how am i? etc.

Answer 2

At a time when advances in science and technology have changed our understanding of our mental and physical selves, it is easy for some to dismiss the discipline of philosophy as obsolete. Stephen Hawking, boldly, argues that philosophy is dead.



Not according to Rebecca Newberger Goldstein. Goldstein, a philosopher and novelist, studied philosophy at Barnard and then earned her Ph.D. in philosophy at Princeton University. She has written several books, won a MacArthur “Genius Award” in 1996, and taught at several universities, including Barnard, Columbia, Rutgers, and Brandeis.



Goldstein’s forthcoming book, Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won’t Go Away, offers insight into the significant—and often invisible—progress that philosophy has made. I spoke with Goldstein about her take on the science vs. philosophy debates, how we can measure philosophy’s advances, and why an understanding of philosophy is critical to our lives today.

Answer 3

Philosophy is extremely complicated field of study. People read the thoughts of the greatest minds in history, they study logic which on an advanced level is as hard as mathematics. They do ethics as well, which examines all our actions and intentions. They study philosophy of religion, science and art.



Everything came out of philosophical thinking. Foremost physics and chemistry, which paved the way for everything you name science today. They are a form of philosophical thinking. Psychology and sociology are the latest fruits that came out of philosophy, just couple of decades ago, and see how powerful are they now.



Philosophy is all about objective truths, I don't know where have you heard of the thing about subjective truths. Philosophy is rigorous and logical. And it is very very complicated.



The fact that you don't see "philosophical discoveries" on the news that doesn't mean that philosophy is stupid.

Answer 4

I'm studying civil engineering. My brain is all about science. And logistics.



I had a few mandatory philosophy classes and I was really bad at them. I cannot fathom questions without concrete answers. I just can't.



But then the teacher asked this question : "should we attribute laws and rights to nature and animals in order to end ecological disasters?"



And that's when I realised that philosophy wasnt all about existential questions but also about the future of the human race. And thats pretty cool.

Answer 5

"Show me a man who has not failed and I will show you a man that has not tried." Socrates



Philosophy, in my opinion, give life meaning, or tries to. Questions like "Why are we here? How can we cope? How can we overcome? What should we be concerned with overcoming? How to improve, and what we need to consider needs improving? Why do we feel a certain way. What are the other levels of existence that some aspect of myself currently belong to. What it means to be a multi-dimensional being? Questions that science can not fathom because they are not observable nor can they be measured. The real world is truly a messed up place. Have you noticed? We don't need m ore military might, we need conflict resolution. We don't need improved economic strength, we need reasons to consider doing with less for our Earth's sake. A nation that focuses on science is a nation that lacks depth and understanding in matters of the heart and what it means to be human. More military might and focus on economics breeds selfish, apathetic warmongers that do not think and feel for themselves and will lose the ability to do so altogether. I like it that there is a least a small amount of balance through philosophy don't you?

Answer 6

Philosophy teaches the mind reasoning and different ways to view and think about everything. Natural philosophy gave birth to physics and inspired many of the greatest minds in history. From the way theoretical physicists of today build their theory's, view and understand the universe and all it contains to the way religions of the world are understood. The roots of understanding it all started with philosophy. Philosophy is the study of the general and fundamental nature of reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It is under appreciated only by those uneducated about it. In truth science wouldn't be where it's at without philosophy, I recommend that everyone learn some on the history of it, the contributions that came from it and the many different types / forms of philosophy and how they evolved into modern branches of physics math and science.

Answer 7

A better question would be why are you so narrow minded. All science does is answer questions about things which have a hypothesis that can be tested. But when you ask something like what is the meaning of human life, what is it's value, what is it's purpose, is there any point in love? What's the point of bieng a good person if you have nothing to loose if your bad? All these questions are beyond the criteria of the scientific methodology.

Answer 8

The world didn't say to walk only with our one foot, and we find it useful when we try to walk with our both feet. Even working with only one hand is also hard, and we find it easy working with both hands. Probably our physical body was designed to work that way.



So, with same reasoning, living in this physical world would be best if man tries to endeavour both science and philosophy. While science will help him on his physical pursuits, philosophy on the other hand, balances his totality, as a man of science, yet having a heart to be kind and friendly. Could this be so, our earth would be a much better place to live than it is now.

Answer 9

You make a valid philosophical point.

What did it create? What did it make? What did it improve?

What if it changed awareness? What if a person's perception were refined as a result of your philosophical ideas? What if it helped to expand minds, making them more agile? Then maybe philosophy is capable of adding value, even in a materialistic world.

Well trained minds create the ideas that lead to the possibilities that fuel the output of the makers and the doers.

In general, I agree with the point you are making but I also acknowledge the contribution of those who make us stop and think. Flabby thinking is never going to drive a robust economy so anything that challenges us has the potential to make a valuable indirect contribution.

Science gives us hard data. Our comprehension/interpretation of that data depends our mental tool kit. The ability to critically appraise an idea or a data set gives us an advantage. Philosophical debate can help to give us those skills.

Answer 10

it's probbably because they don't get much life...Philosophy is a good tool if you want to forget about life that you don't live if you know what I mean...There are those people who live their lives and those who would like to live their lives, but they just can't find any real motive or sense. The former are usually those who turn towards philosophy so they can kill some of their useless time on this ridiculous planet called Earth...

Answer 11

If education is associated with science, philosophy is no less associated with education and, among its lessons, there is an ability to better understand and relate with others in a society, as well as the environment. Further, one could take the position there is a philosophy that underpins scientific exploration and discovery without which there would be no science.

Answer 12

You do realize that science is a branch of philosophy? You are denying the worth of philosophy in terms of.....philosophy. Hence your argument ipso facto supports the worth of philosophy. We would not know what science is and isn't without philosophers like Aristotle, Rene Descartes, Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper.



It seems to me that the Germans managed to get their nation destroyed in the last century precisely because they gave up their great philosophical tradition for anti-intellectualism. Would the USA have become a great nation without eggheads like Paine and Jefferson?

Answer 13

"Philosophy simply makes subjective statements and couldn't care less whether they're true"



"An individual who focuses on philosophy learns a little about himself."

"A nation that focuses on science improves its military and economic strength and its people's quality of life. A nation that focuses on philosophy remains backwards until conquered, educated, and shown the error of its ways by its developed neighbors"



ALL FALSE. You have a very limited and inadequate understanding of philosophy and its function. However, you are not personally required to read or learn philosophy if you do not want to.

Answer 14

Philosophy simply makes subjective statements and couldn't care less whether they're true"



"An individual who focuses on philosophy learns a little about himself."

"A nation that focuses on science improves its military and economic strength and its people's quality of life. A nation that focuses on philosophy remains backwards until conquered, educated, and shown the error of its ways by its developed neighbors"



ALL FALSE. You have a very limited and inadequate understanding of philosophy and its function. However, you are not personally required to read or learn philosophy if you do not want to.

Answer 15

Your understanding of science and philosophy seems to me more than a little shallow. I won t go into the technical details of that snap judgment here, but I want you to understand that I m taking your question as a naive and arrogant sophomorism.



Science as such asks very few questions. Really. The questions science addresses come from people who deal with real world problems, more often than not. There ARE questions asked by scientists, to be sure, but a lot of those are airhead questions, more concerned with the merely logical consistency with pre-existing theory than with the correspondence between the logical constructs of theory and the natural objects of nature.



I m not unsympathetic at all with your obvious commitment to practical concerns. That s where the good questions come from, after all. But, not every pointy-headed philosophe has forgotten how to wipe his butt after pooing; even a philosopher has practical concerns and questions.

Answer 16

You make it sound as if people who practice philosophy practices nothing else. Most people that practice philosophy also are very knowledgeable in science, politics, etc.



Philosophy helps in the awareness of ourselves, it helps to understand ourselves and each other and therefore become better people.

Answer 17

Wrong: Philosophy couldn't care MORE what is true. The whole idea of philosophy is to determine what we do know, can know, and how we should live. No room for BS in that.

Answer 18

I think that philosophy is important. It makes people think about the questions which don't have a particular answer. It teaches you that existence is not living in this world simply and being part of the things that don't exist.

Answer 19

dumb question in essence philosophy is needed for good methods of science theology littrature history pollitics or mathematics anyone who says otherwise including Stephen hawking is completly wrong philosophy is literally observances of the world and univers around us its a very broad term this can be taken and broaken down into many forms literally (theology science history and math and some pollotics) or figuratively (politics and littrature even a bit of history and theology can fit in this category here) as you see philosophy is the head of other subjects pretty much

Answer 20

There are many branches to philosophy. It forms the basis of modern science and every aspect of our society. What better subject to waste time with?

Answer 21

Science satisfies body needs. Philosophy satisfies soul needs.

Scientific development without philosophical temperment makes life hollow.

Answer 22

Like many people, so it seems, you believe that one branch of epistemology, that is science, Science no more provides a complete explanation of life than do so many of the branches of knowledge. To believe that it does is comforting, for a simple explanation of the complexities of life would be welcomed by everyone. Theology and Philosophy as doctrines actually throw up as many questions as they answer but allow us to approach life as a complex entity which means we can deal with it better.

Answer 23

You mistake philosophy with the verb, to philsophize. To be a being as we are is to be thinking, in time, about time, and to know time. Without at least what can be seen as thought from the human perspective, quality of life is on par with a rocks capacity to quantify its own existence relative to the rain that falls upon it. I think therefore I am and so I choose to be and not not be. Life fills in the blanks

Answer 24

One reason to invest time with philosophy is to learn basic logic.



For example, you are arguing in a circle: "Why waste time with philosophy?" implies as its premise that "philosophy is a waste of time." This is the fallacy of arguing in a circle. A better-structured question is: "Is philosophy a complete waste of time?" (In your case, no. You would possibly learn that your argumentation is illogical, and perhaps typically so.) Logic is the basis of science. So, you might become a more correctly humble scientist, satisfied with observing atom-based data of replicable events, and by induction, deduction, and abduction, constructing falsifiable theories. In turn, your more logical and therefore more efficacious scientism would promote more techne (technology), and therefore a stronger (per increasing techne = "The good") nation, as you apparently desire.





A second major error in your reasoning is called the "black and white" or "either-or" fallacy. You tend to "either science, good, or philosophy, bad." You exclude middle ground options such as: some people may specialize in a science, a few people may specialize in philosophy, and of course philosophers may learn a lot from the sciences, and scientists may learn a little from the philosophies. You make a third error, the fallacy of hasty generalization (or unrepresentative sample), which posits an ideal straw nation case of philosophers and another ideal straw nation of scientists. Consider an actual nation, not a straw nation, e.g. Socrates in Athens, a technological-military power of its day. In fact, or "reality" as you claim to know and define it, nations typically contest other nations, and on the level of science and engineering, a more scientifically powerful nation will tend to defeat a less scientifically powerful nation. (If you are considering a college major, perhaps you should go into one of the STEM majors?) However, warning against being a nation of philosophers in a world of powerful scientist-nations is an ideal-case or "straw nation" argument, and does not describe the actual reality and worth of the role Socrates played in a real-world scientistic-militaristic Athens (btw, Socrates did elect to participate in the Athenian military of his day, but his major contribution to the world was in knowing that he didn't know, whereas many others in Athens were sure they knew, by their arguments based on their "empirical logicisms," what was real and true). And, you again commit the fallacy of hasty generalization by proclaiming atom-based facticity as (the) "reality." If you are omniscient, you have more reason to claim your assertion is true; otherwise, logically, not so much. In sum, you are promoting a straw nation fallacy, based on the fallacy of causal reductionism, which, like neopositivism, is an overstatement based on psychologisms. The examined life/consciousness approach of Socrates and Plato might well have precluded neopositivism's worst excesses and errors.

Answer 25

1. Philosophy deals with objective and subjective points of view.

2. Truth is encouraged in philosophy, and there is even philosophers who have devoted themselves to defining truth.

3. "Know thyself" is a philosophical statement.

4. Science is just as important as philosophy for a nation.



I mostly disagree with everything you have philosophized on.

Answer 26

Why do people waste time with philosophy?



Probably because they might as well try something new (rather than novels or science fiction for example).

But science does ask objective questions,as you say. It even asks objectively about such major theories such as the Theory of Everything ( see modern physics)....although such useful answers are difficult to come by.

Nonetheless we do have a comparable occurance in philosophy.

Pertinent objective questions like whether criticism within philosophy* is beneficial and desirable, much like the academic (or such) criticism of science, science theories.

Another objective question in philosophy is whether the emeritus philosopher Plato's work is suspect and/or bankrupt because he wrongly thought that nations or society should be, or be taught, ethically bancrupt and morally backward ( that Plato in effect "couldn't care less" about objective morals - he wanted students to be taught to become citizens who were basically useless, unfree scientific workers, not discoverer- philosophers!).

As you may agree, Science could hardly be less susceptable to Plato's bancrupt ideas and retrograde legacy.

Its not so much that some like Hawking believe that the discipline-of-philosophy is "dead", just that our philosophers and philosophy are taught differently and taught less objectively,less focused and thus more inadequately than the scientists, their disciplined students too.

Philosophers and their students everywhere struggle by being taught the so-called disciplined and unreasoned theories of not only Plato, but of others like Hegal and Marx**. Thus these students are too much hindered by their philosophical studies..to make much impact on science and its modern path

And even science does not "waste time" in burdening their people with the why-and-wherefors of say, Darwinist theory, and its latest version.*** The new scientist is routinely disciplined in the objective truth of darwin-ism, not any of its inconsistant flaws or mistakes.



* Not only philosophy but all the arts as well.

** The Open Society and its Enemies, by kr Popper.

*** They should be interested,not disinterested, because we now know that science TRADITION is taught using "discipline"..whereas we know that science ITSELF proceeds by DISCOVERY, the "discovery method" which proceeds by identifying problems and then their solutions.

And see karl Popper's work, Objective Knowledge for a more complete explanation ; also in the textbooks NO MENTION is made of that work (it should be) and only the more earlier, and less clearer work is cited - The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934). And I think that the important problem of science's progress SHOULD be highlighted by the more,shall we say, the more "open" and better written,method-of-science*^ as outlined within his Objective Knowledge essays.

*^ a much more BEHAVIORAL method, which incidently, uses each scientist's OWN discipline-their OWN personal discovery method-which then is allied-to criticism...in the discovery of another objective typical, solution (!)

Answer 27

Time is all we have . science isn't going to change the fact that 87 years from the time a young boy is born he will be in line for death . and in between those two spots in time comes each of the other days . why waist them trying to figure out how many stars are between here and six galaxies over . there's a bunch , what does that cloud remind you of . is a much better waist of time .

Answer 28

Because Philosophy IS the "SCIENCE" that studies ALL the other sciences!



i did NOT said it was "CORRECT", i said it "STUDIES"!!



when "people" don't have an answer or a valid argument or a reason...or logic...or anything else, that makes sense, backing them up,...they know, that they can go running back like puppies to philosophy to have a "back up plan"...or THEY JUST SIMPLY ENJOY PHILOSOPHY!



Edit: philosophy can be fun, it can be like "play ground"...with philosophy you CAN question ANYTHING... EVEN PHILOSOPHY ITSELF!

sorry, my English is bad...doing my best.



Why did YOU wasted your time asking this question? -----that's me answering your question "using" philosophy!



you'll probably won't understand Sh*t...about my question,unless you "care" about philosophy...



Before you say anything....i AGREE with you....about science.

Answer 29

Would you consider the writings of Plato, Descartes, Kant, and many others that have generated the IDEAS upon which hour lives and civilization are based as having no value or meaning (that is a waste of time)?

Answer 30

Because suffering builds character, and philosophy is the mind's way of coping with pain before we move on in character.

Answer 31

Branches of philosophy, to name but a few

Ethics

Political Philosophy

Metaphyisics

Religious philosophy

Theory of knowledge

Logic

Philosophy of Science





Interestingly there is an entire field of academic study that deals specifically with what science is, how it works, and the logic through which we build scientific knowledge. This branch of philosophy is called the philosophy of science. Without which Science would have no direction.



It looks at What kind of data can be used to distinguish between real causes and accidental regularities?

How much evidence and what kinds of evidence do we need before we accept hypotheses? (subjective statements to you )

Why do scientists continue to rely on models and theories which they know are at least partially inaccurate (like Newton's physics)? The exception that proves the rule.





Epistemology — branch of philosophy that deals with what knowledge is, how we come to accept some things as true, and how we justify that acceptance.



Empiricism — set of philosophical approaches to building knowledge that emphasizes the importance of observable evidence from the natural world.



Induction — method of reasoning in which a generalization is argued to be true based on individual examples that seem to fit with that generalization. For example, after observing that trees, bacteria, sea anemones, fruit flies, and humans have cells, one might inductively infer that all organisms have cells.



Deduction — method of reasoning in which a conclusion is logically reached from premises. For example, if we know the current relative positions of the moon, sun, and Earth, as well as exactly how these move with respect to one another, we can deduce the date and location of the next solar eclipse.



Parsimony/Occam's razor — idea that, all other things being equal, we should prefer a simpler explanation over a more complex one.



Demarcation problem — the problem of reliably distinguishing science from non-science. Modern philosophers of science largely agree that there is no single, simple criterion that can be used to demarcate the boundaries of science.



Falsification — the view, associated with philosopher Karl Popper, that evidence can only be used to rule out ideas, not to support them. Popper proposed that scientific ideas can only be tested through falsification, never through a search for supporting evidence.



Paradigm shifts and scientific revolutions — a view of science, associated with philosopher Thomas Kuhn, which suggests that the history of science can be divided up into times of normal science (when scientists add to, elaborate on, and work with a central, accepted scientific theory) and briefer periods of revolutionary science. Kuhn asserted that during times of revolutionary science, anomalies refuting the accepted theory have built up to such a point that the old theory is broken down and a new one is built to take its place in a so-called "paradigm shift."



Aristotle (384-322 BC) — Arguably the founder of both science and philosophy of science. He wrote extensively about the topics we now call physics, astronomy, psychology, biology, and chemistry, as well as logic, mathematics, and epistemology.



The ability for a collective group to bring together their variuos thoughts on what is or what is not is what allows us to develop a way of thinking that leads to possibilities of the future. After all life is like a glass of beer.......

Answer 32

By the time a man completes his studies with Philosophy, he is half broken and cracked.

Answer 33

I though Philosophy make you think about what you can do better to question one self to find answers?

Answer 34

Philosophies are opinions for which there is no scientific answer, or at the very least, there is not one readily available.



Does science explain 'love' and 'hate' and 'jealousy' and 'taste in art' or 'taste in music' etc. to your satisfaction?

Answer 35

Philosophy attempts to answer questions that are wholly unanswerable by science. Both have their place.

Answer 36

Metaphysical speculation is not always subjective; the objective speculations always lead the questions in science.

Science is based in epistemic principles, that is, on principles which can prove things. Metaphysics is not the only source for science to investigate, but it's the largest.

Answer 37

as well as the environment. Further, one could take the position there is a philosophy that underpins scientific exploration and discovery without which there would be no science.

Answer 38

Why do people waste time with sport?

Why do people waste time with travel?

Why do people waste time with politics, religion and sex?

Answer 39

It is not a waste of time,it is useful and helps us understand the world. Logic can be directed applied to the world of computers,computer programing

Answer 40

My Philosophy is many other things...

Answer 41

for me it's enjoyable to much learning can make you mad go on let your hair down and impart some philosophy of life you know you want to

Answer 42

Philosophy is useful,without it we dont know who we are and where we are heading in future.

Answer 43

It clarifies our thinking, is profound and teaches wisdom. The PhD in philosophy is the plum of all degrees.

Answer 44

Ahh, it is just this habit I fell into when I decided to leave my own individual place of tranquility. As my nerves began to overtake me thinking activity increased. That is just one of the habits I have to help me think. Not easy. We all have something to help us with so much activity going on.

Answer 45

Thank you for sharing your philosophy with us.

Answer 46

A thought shared.

Answer 47

I think, May be, Basic of the "Existence" Itself is the "WASTING" the "TIME", Which is Giving the "Duration" as the "LIVING", Where the Philosophy of the Life Is Aive.

Answer 48

Dreaming exercises the brain so that it can deal with the facts that are needed for the advancement of society.

Answer 49

military and economics is what is going to turn the world into a dystopia, something philosophers would discuss

Answer 50

Because they want to

Answer 51

A better question would be why are you so narrow minded.

Answer 52

More escapism

Answer 53

The same reason that you have just done so.

Answer 54

True 👍🏻

Answer 55

no answer