Like I said, depends on what you mean with "practical".

Could you explain what you mean by "practical" in this sense?

Useful for a physical task.

well, many aspects of our culture or science have philosofical roots.
The first one to talk about atoms for example was Democritus a greek philosofer(born ca. 460 BC)

Science in fact IS philosophy as philosophy is seeking for wisdom.

So if you deny philosophy has any practical aspects for physical tasks you deny science is practical.

The most "philosophical" science in your terms would be maths.

Try building a computer without maths...

What you are doing is essentially asking if you can use a "verb" or a "noun" to build a car. It's a pointless and useless question. It's not thought provoking, it's not an interesting or clever question at all.

No, philosophy isn't directly used for physical tasks.

You should have spent the time between 1990 and now simply looking philosophy up in books. Then you wouldn't have to keep asking the same pointless question over and over.

There are (minor) aspects of philosophy which can be used for practical problem solving (like I said, they do cover logic). But physical construction? No.

So... do you like music? Reading? TV? Movies? Chatting with your friends?

A horse can lead you to lead him to a near by trough, and he can enjoy his amusement by watching you try to make him drink when his belly is already full of water and he can enjoy your expression of astonished naiveté when he pisses all over your good intentions with some of the water he already possessed. He will just keep looking thirsty and dry for anyone to try and help him too. That’s why they call it horsing around.

Some horses just like to horse around with people’s good intentions in part because they don't have any moral compassion in their heart to keep them from disrespecting the good intentions of others and in part because it reminds them of when they use to slowly pull the wings off of butterflies or dominate there younger siblings with devious power trips and traps.

What has that got to do with philosophy?
Apparently I am a utilitarian bricoleur who has never advanced beyond Piaget level 2. I also apparently have the very unusual characteristic, for a male, of lateral thinking.

philosophy is by definiton the love to seek wisdom, this includes science, religion, art and communication.

If you deny these things lack practical use for us you sure are not a lateral thinking being. period.

I have never understood what use religion and art are anyway.
I think philosophers and social scientists are badly lacking in communication skills.

There really are some real weirdos on this board.

You may think that, I of course, could not possibly comment.

Why, too philosophical for you?

@papasmurf: Meh, will you go point by point what is wrong the reasons i set out in #30 and perhaps some other points. This thread is drifting to lameness.. (Other people make a better lists of reasons if you wish.)

I agree RJ. And that may be the gist of an answer to your question in your last PM to me.

My expectations of respect and propriety are not met here. Know of any "good" forums with people not trying to dominate each other and themselves with their ideologies and isms, but have fruitful conversations of human depth?

I got booted by lib, after Rudi, and oxi. She couldn't handle our anger I guess. Anyway this thread is par for the course here. I have just been slumming it, and picking on the bullies. A great way to find the inner bully that I want to change.



http://joindiscussion.com/religion-p...html#post80629

First, philosophy means "the love of wisdom," so other than that, it needs no practical use. But as a matter of practicality, philosophy affords one a sense of history and perspective with which to better judge the world and one's place in it. Thus through philosophy we learn what life values and behaviors enable us to enjoy life and live satisfying and fulfilling lives.

Having said this, I suspect you are not open to any positive remarks about philosophy, or you would not ask the question.

Theosopher1

It is a famous quote from a British TV series, House Of Cards, a fictionional comedy/drama about corrupt politicians.

Hi papasmurf.

Before I attempt to answer your question, can I ask you a few questions so that I can understand a little better what angle you're coming from?

First: I assume, based on what little you've said and what others have said, that your question can be elaborated upon as such: "Do philosophers and philosophy classes have any use in people's day-to-day lives going about the normal physical tasks of life?"

Would that be a fair assessment? If not, can you change that to elaborate more on what you're asking?


Second: You've defined "practical" as "being useful for physical tasks"--physical tasks being such things as acquiring food, building houses, healing wounds, and so forth. Yet we have other tasks in life--"mental tasks". We constantly have to make decisions (even when we are performing physical tasks) and deliberate on which options would be best to choose. We are bombarded with opinions and claims and we constantly have to evaluate the evidence for those claims, determine if we consider them correct or not before we accept them. We are faced with moral decisions on a daily basis, some more critical than others, and we have to decide how we are going to act. These are all mental tasks.

Do you consider study of a subject that is "useful for mental tasks" as not being practical? Or would you concede that study of a particular subject is practical if it is "useful for physical or mental tasks"?


Third: By defining "practical" as "useful for physical tasks" you're leading us to believe that you consider physical tasks the only things worth pursuing, and mental tasks as worthless. Considered from a career perspective, that would mean you consider mechanics, construction workers, garbage collectors, etc. (those who work at physical tasks) as performing the only worthwhile jobs, while those who mostly perform mental tasks for a career, such as accountants, school teachers, lawyers, legislators, mathematicians, many research scientists, as performing worthless jobs.

Is that an accurate assessment of your position? If not, please clarify.


Fourth: By the way you've phrased your question and your terse replies, you seem to be implying that if something is of no practical use, that is, if it does not help you in your performance of physical tasks, then it is worthless and you should not waste your time on it.

Again, is that an accurate assessment of your position? If not, please clarify.


Lastly: You obviously watch fictional television shows. What is the practical use of that? What practical use is there in viewing fictional movies or reading fictional books? Or, to put it in your words, how is reading or viewing fiction "useful for a physical task". And if they are not practical (by your definition) why do you engage in those activities? Why would you go see a movie, watch a television drama or comedy if it has no practical use?


Thanks
--Dan

As a matter of fact I don't watch fictional TV shows at all.
I have over 3000 books in my home and very few of those are fictional. (The ones that are, were written by authors who did a hell of a lot of research to get technical accuracy.)
I have more than enough day to day drama and comedy in my own life without watching fictional versions.
As to your other points I have as yet found no use for philosophy in my day to day life whatsoever.

Tis but a blind man arrogantly complaining about other peoples need of bright light.

Hahaha. Somehow that doesn't surprise me. :-)


I can certainly understand that. Many (most?) people don't.

But I didn't ask you if you had found a use for philosophy in your day to day life. And you only answered one of the questions that I did ask. Would you mind answering the others?

--Dan