Philosophy is Stupid... How would you respond?
I've been talking about pursuing a degree in Philosophy. I don't think I've ever heard a positive response. Some people (acquaintances, relatives, friends) just blurt out something like, "that's stupid", or "Philosophy is stupid", or "a degree in Philosophy is useless."
How would you respond?
How would you respond?
Comments (96)
Now, if you were asking about whether the study of philosophy is useful, it would be a different question. (Most philosophers throughout history did not have degrees in philosophy).
Most of all, is your vocation teaching philosophy at some educational institution? If it is, then a degree is probably essential. If it isn't, then it all depends on what would be the better uses of your time :).
Ask them for reasons. If they can give you convincing ones, give up the idea. If they can't, suggest they join you.
But then the best reply is Forrest Gump's: Stupid is as stupid does.
Philosophy is not stupid - but many philosophers qualify as such. Most people are terrified of philosophy - that's why they join a church.
It reminded me of this scene >:O :
"Meaningless! Meaningless!" says the Teacher. "Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless." Ecclesiastes
What isn't stupid and meaningless from the Teacher's perspective?
I tried Philosophy in college and didn't like it, but Philosophy isn't stupid, and a degree in Philosophy is no more stupid than a degree in English Literature, which I enjoyed getting, pretty much. There is no field of study that somebody has not declared "stupid".
Whether a degree in Philosophy, or English Literature, or fine arts, is a strategically sound decision depends on what your life plans are, and how the degree fits into that.
There is the question of resources: can you finance the degree (one way or another) and can you afford to not earn an income while you are pursuing the degree?
If you really want to be an electrical engineer, but find philosophy interesting, then getting a degree in philosophy first might be considered ill advised. If you are really interested in philosophy but get a degree in electrical engineering because you think you will make more money in that, then it might or might not be ill-advised. It depends on what you want your life to look like 5 to 10 years after you get your degree.
Any degree in the liberal arts (philosophy, history, literature, language, sociology, etc.) will have a similar value on the job market. Degrees are positive assets. But again, it depends... If you want to teach philosophy and can barely squeak through a bachelors degree, then it's probably ill advised. If you can't afford graduate school no way no how, then starting that course might be ill advised.
As Mariner noted, degrees-in-Philosophy are to Philosophy what a degree in English Literature is to becoming an author of English Literature -- probably no relationship whatsoever.
I know people who are philosophers, pretty much, but who have no more than a high school diploma. I know people who have several degrees who are philosophers, pretty much, and we all know people who have several degrees and manage to be nincompoops, pretty much.
The philosophical question that you need to answer is "What should I do?"
Kant argued that when one learns philosophy, one learns the history of philosophical attempts. It is subjective-historical. You are learning how to do philosophy.
The people who call philosophy stupid are the people who haven't put down the time to understand what philosophy is about. That goes with basically any activity in general. If you call something stupid before you even know what it is, you're the one who is just being stupid.
All degrees are stupid, unless you run out of toilet paper, then any degree would be quite helpful! ;)
Do something useful that will help others. Ask yourself: how can I make the world a better place? Or go smaller - how can I make my city/town/village a better place? What do people need? What will better their lives? Give it to them, they will pay you. Look around you - what do they need? Identify it. Supply it to them. Be an upstanding member of your community who spends his life doing truly useful work. Do you think Archimedes, or Leonardo Da Vinci had degrees? That didn't stop them from doing useful work and helping others (and posterity).
The two best jobs I had (14 years worth for the two) were:
tutoring college students in how to study and trying to get them to think about what they wanted to do with their lives (since the students I was seeing were likely to flunk out of college) and
conducting AIDS prevention outreach in high-risk environments for AIDS transmission (gay bath houses, adult book stores, gay bars, gay cruising areas...)
Both of these jobs were very satisfying and I had no specific academic preparation to do either of them.
These jobs were serendipity. I had no intention of working in these areas.
So the question still stands... how to respond to, "philosophy is a stupid and a waste of time."?
I have to admit. I do feel like the shoe is on the other foot. About 30 years ago I met a guy who was into philosophy, and I tried to convince him it was ridiculous. I'll have to think about just what it was that changed my perspective.
So you enjoy it.
What you're running into here is a question of taste. People are often really invested in their tastes. (I think Alain de Botton has a book about this.) To some people, you are what you like. It can be hard to understand how someone can like something you don't. You might even take differing taste as an implied critique of your own taste, of your identity. It gets emotional.
So you could just say, de gustibus non est disputandum. But if you were thinking you could give them, you know, reasons why philosophy isn't stupid, you've got to recognize that that's you thinking like a philosopher. Any reason might be taken as just more stupidity.
You enjoy it, and you're not hurting anyone. That's enough reason. (You might even try to find some way to get across to them what you enjoy about philosophy. That would do more than some lecture on What Makes Philosophy Important and Valuable to Humanity.)
You could say "Some of it is not only stupid, some of it is outright bullshit; but some of it is pretty good." Sort of like life itself.
Philosophy is not a straight forward major. You do not get a lot of direct career and future possibilities out of it like you would with something from the sciences, business, or medical field.
In other words, the future does not exactly unfold itself for you, and this becomes even greater if you pick a major that is not exactly in high demand. This is not to say it can't be done or that you cannot do things outside your major to a fulfilling future, but I would not bank on that. People in other majors get more direct and a wider selection of possibilities. They have all the same opportunities those in the humanities have and more.
Do you need to do philosophy, in the sense that you cannot feel complete without doing it for a large portion of your life? Must you have philosophy on your mind 24-7 or you will start to lose it? If not, I suggest a double major. I would heavily suggest thinking about the paths you want to have available and those you are willing to close.
By "stupid" do they mean 'impractical', or 'no use'? Is undertaking a degree in philosophy going to be useful to you? If so, do you believe it will be the degree itself, or the pursuit of it that will be useful? I recently dropped out of an undergraduate degree majoring in philosophy that I have been pursuing for the last 8 years while still running my landscape design and contracting business, practicing painting and drawing and writing and learning music (I love too many things).
I dropped out because I had not undertaken the study in order to get a qualification, but to enhance my study of philosophy (which I had already been doing for many years prior). My areas of interest within philosophy have narrowed so much over that time that trying to find time to read texts that I am not that interested in, and write the essays that I have little enthusiasm for writing, has come increasingly to consume too much of the precious time I need to devote to the list of texts I want to study as well as my other pursuits.
I dropped out with an 80% average, two academic prizes on my record, and a $9000 HECS debt, and I have no regrets because learning the discipline of study and writing essays certainly helped me. The piece of paper at the end would only be useful if you would be able to use it to qualify for a profession you really wanted to practice.
But, then, I'm not interested in persuading them, and am giving just about as much thought to my replies as I tend to feel they're giving.
Why respond at all? It's sort of like shitting on art or science. It's just like. . . uhhh, OK. Good luck with that, buddy.
Well, I'm about to do proper graduate studies in Philosophy and quite a lot of my friends (I am 68 so they're mostly retired) ask me what am I doing it for? 'Isn't that just intellectual gymnastics?'
But this is after two years of a grad diploma, and some of the sceptics who looked at me amazed when I said I was going to do that, now say, 'Well done.' Keep going long enough to look them in the eye and say, This is what it's done for me. That's what I say :)
Thanks... I'm leaning towards this type of response. When I get a negative response, I just think to myself, "Yes, that is your attitude towards philosophy." and I make judgments about their ability to reason. Eventually, they might be able to persuade me that have some aptitude for reasoning, but they're going to have to work at it.
But it's not all stupid, and I still have an attraction to the stuff that I don't consider stupid.
Anyway, it's certainly not the most practical field to pursue for job prospects. But you should pursue what you're passionate about.
Not necessarily! Perhaps someone has spent a life time studying it and concluded that it, or at least 99% of it, IS stupid.
That is the trouble with philosophy, it is so hard to show that it is NOT stupid!
No, those who have spent a lifetime studying philosophy do not call it stupid. They may see all previous attempts as wrong or misguided, like Kant. But certainly they do not call "philosophy" stupid.
I've been studying it for over 45 years now, and again, I think that a lot of it is stupid. There are a lot of stupid arguments within it, many of which are very well-regarded and well-accepted, there's a lot of stupid reasoning from philosophers, a lot of stupid beliefs, etc. For a long time I wouldn't have called it stupid, but because (a) I cared about fitting in with the culture and being "taken seriously" by it, with some inkling that maybe I'd pursue something of a career in it at some point, and (b) my perspective/feeling that a lot of it is, and a lot of philosophers are quite stupid, including a lot of the big figures in the field, has increased over the years.
It's probably fair to say that this is a fortiori because my belief that a lot of people are quite stupid in general has only increased over the years, and that view certainly hasn't been helped by interacting with people on the Internet. We simply wind up with a lot of stupid people who happen to know a lot about philosophy, or the sciences, or whatever subject they're interested in and have learned so that they're well-entrenched in the status quo for their niche. If only that could make them not so stupid.
What would be a picture of someone who isn't stupid? Or a society that wasn't stupid?
For one, it would involve not thinking that it would be easily summarized in "a picture."
Why?
Can you explain, or am I too stupid for your sacred response?
Some philosophy is bad and stupid. Not all philosophy.
Otherwise this just becomes a cherry-pick.
You can't see the answer here?
I agree with that. It's just that "some" is "a lot" in my view.
By what principle?
LOL . . . that's not at all my view.
So historical importance makes it important? Or making sense makes it historically important (based on what exactly)? Or what?
They're correct. After thousands of years of philosophy, philosophers are still unable to determine whether they're dreaming or not, whether there's an external world, whether other minds exist, whether human beings have free will, whether the sun will rise tomorrow (problem of induction), whether their cognitive faculties are reliable, etc. Philosophy is a failure of a discipline. To me, the failure of philosophy represents the absurdity of putting one's trust in the unaided human intellect. Boy, am I glad I got a degree in engineering!
When you build something, do you just get out the hammer and nails and start banging away? Or, as an engineer, do you think about it first? Engineering is a deliberate process – or at least it should be – if it is good engineering. Philosophy is the exact same dynamic. Where do you think mathematics came from? What is the function of mathematics? We use math to calculate things on a basic level - arithmetically. Very useful for grocery shopping. How about if we want to send a rocket to the moon? Now we are using a higher level of math – to predict – estimate – probability. We do the same thing in philosophy – we cogitate for predictability – we estimate the probability – and so on. Mathematics was born from philosophy – the first science. All science relies on philosophy – including engineering to this very day.
Do that.
Isn't it the case that no human has figured out the answers to these questions? Why not label humanity itself as a failure because of these unanswered questions?
You haven't figured out whether or not you're dreaming? Case in point.
If that doesn't endear them to you immediately, I don't know what will.
As for reasoned refutations of philosophy -- I like to read them. But if that's a person's ending point, my thinking goes back to art and science (in a similar way as before) -- when practitioners are dissatisfied with a discipline, they change the way they do it. And new and cool and innovative art, science, and philosophy springs from such dissatisfaction. So maybe the person is doing it wrong (for them, in a relativized way)?
Quoting anonymous66
You don't. Why would you? Didn't they make it clear they have no interest in this subject?
They're interested enough to give their opinion on it. It could be an interesting conversation. They might even change their mind. If someone said that philosophy - or anything for that matter - is stupid, then I think that it'd be quite natural to respond by asking them [i]why[/I] and/or sharing your own opinion in return.
My neighbor's son got a degree in philosophy from one of those tootie-fruity northern New England liberal arts schools. When he graduated, he immediately went to work for a large construction company as a construction manager. He's very successful.
Then there are my three children. One graduated with a degree in political science, one dropped out of college after four years, and one flunked out after one year. Two are farmers and one is a bartender. They are all very good at what they do, but they will never have much money unless they change things up. They are fearless and are following an internal voice.
Which are you? Do you need structure to succeed? Are you fearless?
I hear you – it is advantageous to be practical with one’s life. Many philosophers are not practical. However, many are like your neighbor’s son who are successful in the real world and the world of ideas. Ideally we want both – right? There is an old saying – there are those who can do – there are those who can think – there are those who can do neither – and a few who can do both.
Quoting T Clark
The context of the discussion was effective altruism, where you calculate what does the most good for your contribution. If Singer had gotten a job on Wall Street, he would have had more money to give to charity, but he wouldn't have been in the same position to promote the idea behind being an effective altruist.
One of the things consistently brought up by the EA community is the importance of avoiding burn-out. Even if being a top-notch lawyer or engineer or banker would make you a ton of money, if you hate doing it you won't last very long. It's better to pursue a job that pays well enough that you can donate some to charity, that is also a job you enjoy so you can continue to donate to charity.
The next step people might take in their criticism is to not criticize philosophy, per se, but criticize those who practice it. They claim that they have some kind of deficient character or personality that allows them to study something as useless and boring as philosophy, not like those "other folk" who study the "important" stuff like science and maths. This is simply a personal attack and an affirmation of the status quo.
That being said, however, I do believe science should be more integrated into the philosophy departments (and not necessarily vice-versa). Philosophers need to be knowledgeable about science, but scientists do not necessarily need to be knowledgeable about philosophy (it's more like it's optional, or perhaps a one-semester class). Most importantly philosophers need to be influenced by the scientific culture, not to make philosophy "scientistic" but to make scientific philosophy. Both scientism and anti-science perspectives in philosophy come from an inadequate conception of science itself.
In general, though, I would really like to see a general culture in philosophy end, that of isolation. This comes in many forms. One form is the isolation from the sciences, where things are studying away from any empirical information that may actually be relevant to the topic at hand. Certain accounts of dualism in the philosophy of mind, for example, really only are self-coherent, they aren't really defensible in the big picture.
Then there's the almost clique-like nature of philosophical "schools", federations of thinkers with a common tongue and a common hero figure. You're either in the school or you're not, and if you're not then those part of it can walk all over you with their verbose terminology and esoteric vocabulary. It's a power game. And once again this leads to isolation. Part of the problem then is that it is hard to get people interested in this stuff. I still haven't read anything by Hegel and I don't know when I will or if I even will, I just don't have the motivation to because I don't really understand why Hegel is so important to begin with. From my own perspective, it is as if Hegelians (and other schools as well) don't want newcomers, but then they complain how Hegel could be used to solve many issues in contemporary analytic philosophy or science. Like if you think this is true, then it's up to you to spread the good news of Hegelianism, you can't just expect people to voluntarily spend several years studying something that they aren't sure is helpful or not.
There is also the self-imposed isolation of those who pair philosophy with religion. Historically speaking, philosophy was a very valuable tool for religions. It was philosophy in the service of religion, usually theological of sorts. Theology is just the philosophy that maintained its relation to religion during and after the chaotic splits of the Enlightenment. Religion gives philosophy a "big" purpose - to demonstrate the existence of God, to show the right way to live, to comprehend the sacrament or whatever. It's really important and to be a philosopher tied to religion, or just a theologian, makes you part of a tradition of sorts. But it's also very isolationist and therefore basically irrelevant to those who aren't "in" the school. And then those who are part of the group blame those who aren't for not reading their material. Which is entirely hypocritical as they probably don't read the material of other religious groups. It's really their fault for not communicating properly, but they make it seem like it's your fault and that you're guilty for not reading so-and-so's dissertation of the existence of the divine or whatever or misinterpreted what the esoteric circle was saying.
This leads into another isolationist tactic employed, that philosophy somehow has a "monopoly" on the "Big Questions". Philosophers study "the Big Questions" that pervade all existence. Wow.
One last issue related to this is one that I have seen here on the forums and elsewhere. It could be that philosophy attracts this sort of personality, but it seems to be a common-ish conception of philosophy as being life-changing and aristocratic. That by studying philosophy, you become a more "virtuous" person, or just straight up better than other people, is something I've found to be a common sentiment that is also found it other disciplines as well. I've found this sentiment in myself at times, chiefly characterized by a disdain towards newcomers and a preference for philosophy to continue to be "for the few". If philosophy is only studied by a small portion of the population, it automatically gives those who study it a sense of "special-ness" - they know (?) more than other people. They know (?) certain things that others don't, it's special knowledge that cannot be easily explained to others, assuming there is a desire to teach anything at all. Philosophy, then, becomes some kind of way to separate yourself from the "common rabble" and see yourself as superior to them. Heidegger at least tried to start from common experience and especially the countryside folk, but he still ended up using technical jargon and terminology which ultimately made his thinking isolationist.
A consequence of this sort of special snowflake attitude is that those who have it get super protective and anal retentive about their discipline. They want to be special, but if nobody cares about their discipline, they take this as an insult and go on to pine for the solidarity of the mountains or the woods or whatever. Which is just childish in my opinion.
You can see this general snobbish, isolationist attitude in the very language of those who have it. They'll often say "in philosophy..." or "in science" with the intention that this discipline is something you have to get into. It's a verbal "stop sign" - stop!, we don't want your kind here. Stay outside. This is a symptom of an inferiority complex.
Thanks very much for your very insightful look into the way current "philosophy" may be unintentionally shooting itself in the foot. Agree that philosophical endeavors are best when in harmony with science, while avoiding evangelical scientism, as you imply. The ivory tower may have an ocean view, but it is a dead end. One wonders if Philosophy has been guided away by the powers-that-be from the more provocative, questioning pursuits that Socrates excelled at, to safer academic topics. Or so one could wonder when in full conspiracy-theory mode. ;)
What justification would you have for this belief?
I disagree philosophy is beneficial for everyone - actually obligatory.
One might add: "In philosophy you must not talk before you think about the nature of talking, or knowing, or doing, or thinking."
I can relate. I wouldn't mind just reading and writing about what I want to read and write about, sans degree.
Good point.
By making an argument against philosophy, aren't they, in fact, doing philosophy? If they take the time to create a reasoned argument as a response, I might just ask, "if you don't like philosophy, then why are you doing it?"
It seems to me that, in a very real sense, everyone does philosophy (if philosophy is using reason and argumentation)... it's just that some are better at it (have more skill, more experience, etc.) than others.
"I know I have a pretty good idea of how the world works, how I define words, etc... until someone actually challenges my assumptions about those things... then I start to doubt what I thought I knew... and having my assumptions challenged and doubting what I thought I knew is uncomfortable."
I suppose another reason people have a negative attitude toward philosophy is that some people find it difficult to imagine someone else making a living as a philosopher.
But, I've found it difficult to imagine making a living as say, a salesman, or a writer, or any number of occupations, and yet, some people do make a good living pursuing those occupations (and I'm happy that those occupations exist).
It's not the job of humanity as a whole to find answers to those questions. But it is the job of philosophers to get satisfactory answers to those questions, which they have failed to do. Philosophy is a failure. Time to find a new discipline.
I'd say most academic philosophers have the exact same mindset.
Yes, I agree.
I prefer to be around people who are willing to acknowledge and question their own assumptions... people who are actively looking for good counter-arguments and counter-examples.... people who welcome the challenge that comes from looking at things in ways they haven't themselves considered.
What I see here is an argument that takes this form: "I've decided that it's the job of philosophers to do X... They haven't done X, therefore philosophy is a failure."
But, what if someone else were to argue: "I've decided that it's the job of doctors to cure all diseases.. they have failed to cure all diseases, therefore the medical health field is a failure. Time for all doctors to find a new profession." Would you accept that argument?
It's relatively easy to make frivolous arguments of this sort, isn't it? Someone could easily argue: I've decided that it is the job of profession X to do Y. X has failed to do Y, therefore X is a failure.
Yes. Or, the annoyance could be at the tendency of those who do philosophy to lose sight of common sense and overlook conventional wisdom, evidenced by, for example, asking ill-considered questions or feigning ignorance. Maybe it's not so much the challenge, but the sense that one has been there, done that, and come full circle. The challenge posed might reflect an earlier stage in the thinking process which one can relate to, but has ultimately eschewed as misguided and succumbing to the kind of problems associated with philosophy that have been mentioned in this discussion.
There's this typical approach to philosophy which has quite a lot in common with the ways in which children think and behave, and that's not necessarily a good thing or something to be proud of. It's one thing to be open-minded, but another thing to lack a good mental filter to separate the wheat from the chaff, and sometimes I think that the two get confused.
How would I respond? I would be honest.
Look at what the author says here about majoring in Anthropology:
"It’s official. As of 2012, Kiplinger declared the anthropology major as the worst major for your career. Forbes follows suit: Anthropology is the worst major.
We’re #1!
From Florida Governor Scott’s we don’t need anthropologists to Frank Bruni singling out anthropology in the New York Times, I’m tired of playing defense. We’ve worked hard to get to #1.
Anthropology is the worst major for being a corporate tool. If going to college is only measured by the job you will take immediately after college, then please choose one of Kiplinger’s 10 best college majors for a lucrative career or one of Forbes 15 Most Valuable College Majors. Please don’t become an anthropology major!..." (emphasis mine).
Do you see that first part I put in bold? Anthropology has worked hard to become the worst major for getting you a good-paying job and making you a pawn in the capitalist game, darn it! We're proud to be number one!
Every time I read that I laugh.
Be honest. Say, "You are right. A degree in Philosophy will not make me very useful to this capitalist system that does things like destroy the biosphere, destroy indigenous cultures and employ in sweatshops people forced to move to cities, exploit women and children, etc."
As for philosophy's content itself being stupid, again, be honest. Tell them, yes, speculating about being a brain in a vat won't get anybody anywhere in the economic world like, say, working on an AIDS vaccine. Then remind them that that economic world is poised to replace as many as 50% of us workers with artificial intelligence. But AI can't do things like speculate about being a brain in a vat. The latter ability is part of what makes us human. Tell, them, therefore, that if they think that what makes us human is stupid, and they consider themselves to be human, then they are saying that they are stupid.
But questions that ignore common sense and conventional wisdom are not necessarily ill-considered. You can't be philosophical without asking such questions. To those who regard common sense and conventional wisdom as beyond question, philosophy will always appear ill-considered. Note that you cannot decide ahead of time which examples of common sense are questionable and which are not, without, of course, going beyond it.
It's not necessarily a bad thing or something to be ashamed of either. And separating the wheat from the chaff is an exercise of rationality and good judgment that may not require an anchor in common sense or "grown-up" thinking. On the contrary.
Conventional wisdom has told us that God created Man and the universe, and now tells us that the brain is a computer (at least to me, it seems that among the scientifically but non-philosophically literate this has become something close to common sense, but you could think of other examples). It's surely the job of a philosopher to question such thoughtless prejudices.
What I find stupid about philosophy is what is revealed when a philosopher is asked about some topical social or political issues, whereupon they invariably spout the dullest platitudes. Perhaps the Continentals are less guilty of this, working in more of a self-aware and historically-aware mode than the Anglos. In any case, all it means is that most philosophers are not philosophical enough.
But do they really? Don't they usually quote canonical texts because they're especially insightful, original, and thought-provoking? For me, words that invite criticism may still be worth quoting, precisely because they are so provocative.
It's when it goes past the simple quoting of a long-dead philosopher - when they attempt to defend what they said without integrating it with the knowledge we have now - as if the long-dead philosopher would still say the same thing today with the knowledge we have today.
I have reached the optimal point of all knowledge!
All that know less than me are dullards.
All that think they know more than me went to some fancy college that that Daddy paid for, and are brainiacs who need to get a life.
I have reached the perfect age!
All younger than me are smartass whipper snappers who need to turn off their iPhone for 10 minutes.
All those older than me are just out of it.
I am at the perfect financial level!
Anyone poorer than me is a slob, Anyone richer is a snob!
I am at the perfect center of the universe, the absolute balance point. For now, anyway.
...thus spoke the Philosophmore.
:D
"Philosophy is stupid but not as stupid as The Real Housewives of Orange County and look how much money those people make!"