|
Philosophy and Why I Think It Matters:
Intro
First, I want to identify why I am writing this at all (other than for pure enjoyment, of course). I’ll start by saying that I think philosophy, as a discipline, is quite disrespected in today's (American) society. Occasionally, upon mentioning my interest in philosophy, I am met with mutual interest and all is well. However, more often than not my studies are condemned as useless and that I’m going to end up jobless as a result. You may recall when Stephen Hawking pronounced that "philosophy is dead" (in his book, The Grand Design) or perhaps you remember when Neil deGrasse Tyson said that majoring in philosophy can "really mess you up" among other, perhaps more grounded, criticisms. In my experience, it has seemed that a great deal of people look down on philosophy as no longer having a use. Though "academics" (professors, etc.) have been more sympathetic to the budding philosophy student, others outside academia seem to maintain quite a negative attitude. This is where I find fault.
Before really digging in, I just want to define a few terms so we're on the same page going forward. To define "philosophy" I’ll use the Oxford Dictionary description: "The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline." I don't think it's particularly controversial or useful to discuss for the sake of my argument. By things with "instrumental value" I mean the things that have values dependent on the thing’s ability to acquire something else of value. For example, a shovel has value insofar as it can dig a hole. A broken shovel has less instrumental value than a properly functioning shovel because it is less able to dig said hole which can be then used for some other purpose. By things with "intrinsic value" I mean things that have value in and of themselves, they are not a mere means of acquiring something else (yes, I did just open that can of worms but let me try to deal with this quickly). There are perfectly reasonable arguments regarding the existence of intrinsic value at all as well as arguments for what may possess such value. With my own limited time in mind, I will be fully accepting the position that some things do possess intrinsic value. That leads us to this question: if some things are intrinsically valuable, what are they? Hint: philosophy might be one of them.
I think that in the United States we have an obsession with instrumental value. The most perfect example one could ask for is the love of money. Money is arguably one of the least intrinsically valuable things in existence. After all, it is just fancy, over-glorified paper. Interestingly enough, this fancy paper can do pretty astounding things. Just about anything can be purchased with the fancy paper we call money, even things that have been argued to have intrinsic value (like happiness). When you pay for a child to ride the merry-go-round, you’re paying for something that’ll make the kid happy for a little while. Whether money can purchase lasting happiness is a different discussion altogether (though there have been numerous studies suggesting that it can’t). As the embodiment of instrumental value, our fancy papers are extremely versatile in what they can obtain; where the shovel can only do so many things, money can do many more. So it seems to make sense that we would put our fancy paper on such a pedestal, what’s the problem?
The problem is that we have entirely forgotten about the importance of things with intrinsic value. Once again using money and happiness, I’ll illustrate this dilemma. I really like green tea. Green tea has instrumental value because not only does it give me some obscure health benefits, but it also makes me happy when I drink it. I can purchase green tea with money and so I will work to acquire money to fuel my habit (edit: addiction). So far, there is nothing wrong; however, say I have to do something I really don’t want to in order to acquire my tea, for example, steal it. This would upset me more than the tea would lift me up. The problem is I don’t see the happiness as the end goal, I see the tea (or money to acquire it) as the end goal. In short, by putting the instrumentally valuable things on a pedestal, we forget why we are actually doing what we are doing because we are focused on getting some intermediary thing that gets us the intrinsically valuable object. If you’re thinking this has nothing to do with why philosophy is important, just wait.
Our focus on instrumentally valuable things is clear in our scientific pursuits. Science has incredible instrumental value in that it produces quite a bit in the form of technology. If you believe knowledge to be intrinsically valuable, then science is also instrumentally valuable because it gives us knowledge of things once mysterious. Although, if you believe knowledge to be intrinsically valuable, I’d have a much easier time convincing you philosophy is instrumentally valuable because it also produces knowledge. I will assume it is unclear whether knowledge is intrinsically valuable. This is where a discipline like science departs from that of philosophy: certainly both add to the wealth of knowledge that humans have gathered, but science, through engineering and technology, materially adds to our list of stuff; specifically, our list of instrumentally useful stuff (unless you think your iPod is valuable in and of itself). Philosophy does not. So, finally, why is philosophy important?
I could make the argument that it is instrumentally valuable. Those who take ethical arguments seriously (e.g. doctors, politicians, lawyers) may base their career decisions (whether to pull the plug, vote yea or nay, defend client x) off of such philosophical arguments and that these decision will have material value. However, this specific example applies to questions of right and wrong and less so to questions of existence or reality. Instead, I argue that philosophy is intrinsically valuable. The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline, is, in and of itself, valuable, even though it cannot be used to acquire anything else. This explanation may shed light on why philosophy is so looked down upon as well as why it retains importance regardless of that fact.
...to be continued
EDIT: Removed incorrect usage of "begs the question"
|
Philosophy is important, but it is a discipline that is more focused on creating inward rather than outward value. That's a problem when you're trying to enter today's workforce. It's quite a pickle.
I say you need to study the practical disciplines to put food in your mouth and a roof over your head. But to really live a fulfilling life you need to complement this study with that of philosophy. Do the former to ensure you exist, and do the latter to ensure you really live.
(As an aside, your use of "begs the question" is a perversion of its old use, despite being the proper usage nowadays. When I took an introductory course on philosophy during undergrad my prof. said one of his biggest pet peeves was when students misused this statement. But then again, a phrase is generally defined by how the populace uses it so it's probably not incorrect anymore.)
|
On July 27 2014 10:20 PassionFruit wrote:
Philosophy is important, but it is a discipline that is more focused on creating inward rather than outward value. That's a problem when you're trying to enter today's workforce. It's quite a pickle.
I say you need to study the practical disciplines to put food in your mouth and a roof over your head. But to really live a fulfilling life you need to complement this study with that of philosophy. Do the former to ensure you exist, and do the latter to ensure you really live.
(As an aside, your use of "begs the question" is a perversion of its old use, despite being the proper usage nowadays. When I took an introductory course on philosophy during undergrad my prof. said one of his biggest pet peeves was when students misused this statement. But then again, a phrase is generally defined by how the populace uses it so it's probably not incorrect anymore.)
I sense an Aristotle among us, living the for that Eudaimonea.
+ Show Spoiler [Dust in the wind, dude] +
|
Philosophy often seems to me an excessive amount of narritive attempting to accompany an extremely complicated and difficult to understand desicion making process (probably the fault of my neuroscientist roomates). I don't see anything wrong with philosophy and the study of it but it seems unhelpful to take it seriously. Bare in mind some of the ridiculous seeming cultural and scientific beliefs we have come to generate in the past due to pure mental exersizes and then try to assume that this relic of a way to search for truths is not a fragile process.
|
I like reading about philosophy but I only see it as a diversion. I think it can be a helpful mental exercise but not an end in itself, because to me philosophy is more like the search for the ultimate end. The ultimate end cannot be the search itself
Also I don't think there is a universal ultimate end anyway, since people much smarter than myself have spent millennia debating it and not made much headway
As for studying it, I agree that it's a shame that people disparage it since it doesn't necessarily lead to a job, but at the same time employability is something to consider. I'd rather have to not worry about how to pay my bills than to worry but be able to call myself a philosopher and understand the content that is associated with such a title.
|
On July 27 2014 13:37 puppykiller wrote:
...but it seems unhelpful to take it seriously.
I'm curious as to what disciplines you think we should take seriously?
|
On July 27 2014 10:20 PassionFruit wrote:
I say you need to study the practical disciplines to put food in your mouth and a roof over your head. But to really live a fulfilling life you need to complement this study with that of philosophy. Do the former to ensure you exist, and do the latter to ensure you really live.
I agree, though I think if we consider the more "practical" applications of philosophy (like ethics) it's not hard to see how it could "put food in your mouth" etc. I do think focusing on the very abstract corners of things is a good way to end up unemployed (and this should be avoided). I do think we should explore such distant and weird corners, but we shouldn't rely on this pursuit to be marketable
|
On July 27 2014 14:15 TheGloob wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2014 13:37 puppykiller wrote:
...but it seems unhelpful to take it seriously. I'm curious as to what disciplines you think we should take seriously?
Boom.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Why do you fault people for disliking something? Fish don't like deserts, mice don't like owls, cockroaches don't like people who step on them. Are these creatures "at fault"? What does "at fault" even mean in this context? Do you believe that people who dislike philosophy should like it? Or that people who think philosophers don't do well for themselves should think differently?
If you do hold these beliefs, it is the same as saying "it should always be sunny outside" or "this string should have only a right side and not a left side" or "this box should only have a top and not a bottom". You are saying "everyone should like this subject of philosophy". If people like and respect a subject, then obviously there are also people who dislike and don't respect it, like the front and back of a coin, and when you see that, this whole thing ceases to be a problem. Anyway, if people don't like what you love to do, who cares? Isn't it enough that you love it?
If, pardon my presumption, instead you are saying that you wish for philosophers to have more money, more prestige, and more respect then you wish to have money, prestige, respect, and so on and you aren't really interested in philosophy. If you truly love any hobby or interest or subject, you don't go into it for any other reason than that you love doing it!
The best dancers in the world don't become the best dancers in the world because they want the money, respect, and prestige that goes with being the best dancers in the world. They do it because they love dancing. In the same way, Magnus Carlsen isn't the best chess player in the world because he wants the prestige, respect, and money that go with being the chess world champion, he is the best chess player in the world because he loves chess. Success only comes from losing yourself in the subject, hobby, or interest and then the money, prestige and respect follow from that passion.
So if, as your title suggests, you think that philosophy matters, then do it with all of your passion and soul. But if you only wish to be a philosopher for the rewards associated with it, whether they be social, monetary, or any other kind of reward, then I'm afraid you're going down the wrong path. If you seek these things, fret not, for they are easy enough to acquire. Become a businessman and bully people or a politican and lie to people or a lawyer and argue with people!
|
I'm working on a dual-subject bachelor, which is the norm at my uni when you are studying... oh crap there is apparently no particular english word for that. In Germany, we use "Geisteswissenschaften" as a collective term for basically everything that deals with subjects about man/created by man: society, culture, media, language and, of course, philosophy. The latter is the most popular choice for students at my uni. It was mine too, though I'm maining history. I recently finished my second semester, so I did the basics when it comes to philosophy. The basics (here) are scientific working, the basic problems of philosophy (overview of questions like "Do we have free will?" and which philosophers are dealing with it) and logic - mostly propositional logic, so basic argument forms like modus ponens. We also did predicate logic which can deal with extential and universal quantifiers, like the term "all". Finally, using this knowledge for derivations, formalizing arguments, detecting (formal) false arguments and exposing unproductive forms of argumentation (like the famous "ad hominem" and "post hoc ergo propter hoc") . The next thing philosophy students do here is specializing on theoretical (more logic, scientific theory, metaphysics, epistemolog and stuff) or practical (ethics, political and law philosophy...) philosophy while learning about the history of philosophy in their favorite epochs.
Soooo after listing all this stuff I think one can safely say that philosophy contains many aspects that are great to utilize in other fields. That's why it is so popular at my uni to use it as a second subject. Here's were I see value in philosophy: guiding and challenging the other sciences. The first aspect means making sure our scientific methods, arguments and conclusions are correct in a formal, logically way. The second contains moral and ethics for example. Science and progress without constrains is very dangerous. Like, we don't want a real life Rapture, do we? Heck, you can safely say that philosophy is the foundation of other sciences. Many great minds of ancient Greece who influenced other fields of study would mainly call themselves philosophers if you could ask them since there was no other term or concept for like a mathematician, for exampe.
I see no problem in maining philosophy. We need experts in logic, moral, ethics and such for what I mentioned above. There will always be people interested in such things and there will always be need for it, even when it's mostly hidden and not well paid. So it doesn't matter what the general public thinks. Many disregard even my main field of study... But I'm not in it for the money, I'm doing it because it is my passion.
Example of passion:
+ Show Spoiler +
PS: Mostly lurking around TL, this is my first post ever. Cheers!
|
On July 27 2014 15:26 PoorPotato wrote:
...
I think you're arguing in a vacuum. Things that have intrinsic value still need significant respect from the outside to be 'okay' to pursue, to be enjoyable. Change the subject to the intrinsic value and disrespect in avant-garde art, and you can easily imagine how social expectations and reactions can be very important for a poor, unappreciated avant-garde student, even if most of what he wants to do is to dive into art fully.
This is besides the fact that underlooking philosophy is an actual problem in science, and even more so, with people in general (gullibility, seeing only from your POV, not copmprehending arguments, ethical thinking... everything and more can be helped with philosophy).
I agree with OP.
|
As a philosopher, I always enjoy reading this.
When I was in high school I was always asking myself 'is philosophy useful?'. Now I know. It's kinda strange, the more you study it, the more you feel that question is self-explanatory.
|
@OP: You have given us an outline of what you mean by intrinsic and instrumental goodness etc and then claimed that philosophy is intrinsically good without giving us any actual arguments to work with. Ending on a "to be continued" seems to promise that your next post will actually contain somesort of argument for the intrinsic goodness of philosophy, which I'm sure it will. There is however a pitfall that I would like to draw your attention to:
We must not confuse something being noninstrumentally good (i.e. "intrinsically good" as an end in itself and not as a means to something else) with something being nonprudentially good (i.e. "good as such," rather than good for anyone or anything). Things that are good for me are things that are prudentially good, but they can be "intrinsically" good insofar as they are not means to something else; they can also be instrumentally good insofar as they are means to something else. The question is whether something that is good as an end in itself can ever be good in a nonprudential manner, i.e. good as such without being for anyone or anything, and into which one of those philosophy is supposed to fall in.
Since you argue that philosophy is good as an end in itself, this can either mean that philosophy is noninstrumentally good for someone or that it is noninstrumentally good as such. This is something you must clearify before you go on arguing for the value of philosophy.
If you affirm that philosophy is noninstrumentally good for us and therefore (prudentially) valuable, this must be grounded in an ethical theory of what is good for us. You have a fair set of options here ranging from hedonism to flourishing with the most important question being whether the truth of the statement "x is good for us" depends on x being somehow liked/desired or not.
If you affirm that philosophy is noninstrumentally good, regardless of whether or not it is good for anyone or anything, then it raises quite tricky questions as to the relation between this particular good and other prudential goods. A common example for something noninstrumentally good as such is morality: If it is right that x, but x is contrary to your interests or desires, then x ought to be done regardless. With other words, doing what is right might require some measure of self-sacrifice, in extreme cases it might even require giving up ones life for what is right - but since death is bad for us, what is right might stand in conflict with what is good for us. You could argue that the value of philosophy somehow has a similar status like that. Taking "good as such" seriously, you could posit different realms of values: Things that are aesthetically valuable, scientifically, historically, morally, sentimentally, philosophically etc. independent of whether or not they are actually bad or good for anyone. So in that case there could be aesthetic value in your death, but you would be hard pressed to say that therefore your death is somehow good for you.
Now for some replies:
Philosophy is important, but it is a discipline that is more focused on creating inward rather than outward value. That's a problem when you're trying to enter today's workforce. It's quite a pickle.
I say you need to study the practical disciplines to put food in your mouth and a roof over your head. But to really live a fulfilling life you need to complement this study with that of philosophy. Do the former to ensure you exist, and do the latter to ensure you really live. I think what you mean by inward and outward is mostly economic value: Philosophy doesn't sell very well, but then neither does basic science, yet we don't question someone's aspiration to become a theoretical physicist as much as we do their aspiration to become a philosopher. Neither do we think someone who has no love or talent for physics should pursue physics, so likewise I believe we should not think someone who has no love or talent for philosophy should become a philosopher. It would be rather presumptuous of us to posit that only someone who has done philosophy can lead a good and fulfilling life (not saying that you did posit that).
Philosophy often seems to me an excessive amount of narritive attempting to accompany an extremely complicated and difficult to understand desicion making process (probably the fault of my neuroscientist roomates). I don't see anything wrong with philosophy and the study of it but it seems unhelpful to take it seriously. If your judgement about whether or not it is helpful to take philosophy seriously is based on your impression of what philosophy often seems like, something which you admit is probably more a fault of your roommates and not anything you yourself have thought much about, then surely we have good reasons to be skeptical about your judgement.
@PoorPotato: I don't think you disagree at all with the OP, since I don't think he equates people liking something with it being valuable. The question was whether philosophy does have any value or not - and if so, what kind of value. If it does have value, then pursuing it just for the sake of it can be good, but if it does not have any value at all, then pursuing it is a waste of time. Likewise: if the only kind of value philosophy has were to be economic, then pursuing it for its aesthetic value would be misguided.
Here's were I see value in philosophy: guiding and challenging the other sciences. The first aspect means making sure our scientific methods, arguments and conclusions are correct in a formal, logically way. The second contains moral and ethics for example. Science and progress without constrains is very dangerous. I certainly agree that those are important, but here you argue against OP insofar as you say philosophy is good as a means towards keeping science in check (ethically and methodologically), i.e. it has instrumental value. I believe it does, but the question is whether philosophy has -just- instrumental value or whether there is something else to it.
Also, with that focus on conceptual analysis in your first year, your curriculum sounds like something from the FU. If so, we should hang out sometime!
|
On July 27 2014 15:26 PoorPotato wrote:
Why do you fault people for disliking something?
I think you misunderstood me... I never said people should or need to like philosophy? I only ask that they respect it. For example, I do not particularly like or enjoy math, but I certainly respect it and those who study it. I'm not asking for anything but recognition as an equally useful human being which, I think, is a very fair request.
|
On July 27 2014 16:17 Galika wrote:
"Geisteswissenschaften"
I think "Humanities" might be the closest word, but as far as I know that's not a subject of study here in the States, it's more of an umbrella term.
|
On July 27 2014 21:35 GERMasta wrote:
@OP: ....
Thank you thank you thank you!! This was very necessary feedback. I posted this here for responses like yours; it was very helpful. As I write the next part I will consider what you mentioned. I plan to affirm that philosophy noninstrumentally good, regardless of whether or not it is good for anyone or anything, and answer the tricky questions rather than argue within the bounds of different ethical theories.
|
I love philosophy blogs on TL, I look forward to the next post (hopefully I catch it!). Very good discussion so far.
I think the problem is that with philosophy, the arguments don't seem to be as rigorous or clear as they are in other fields like the mathematical sciences. There are many modern philosophers who make arguments in their own published books, where the words they use are not clearly defined and the conclusions aren't rigorously supported by evidence or studies. For example, take one of the leading French philosophers Jean Baudrillard (quoting from Wikipedia):
Finally, Mark Poster, Baudrillard's editor and one of a number of present-day academics who argue for his contemporary relevance, has remarked (p. 8 of Poster's 2nd ed. of Selected Writings):
Baudrillard's writing up to the mid-1980s is open to several criticisms. He fails to define key terms, such as the code; his writing style is hyperbolic and declarative, often lacking sustained, systematic analysis when it is appropriate; he totalizes his insights, refusing to qualify or delimit his claims. He writes about particular experiences, television images, as if nothing else in society mattered, extrapolating a bleak view of the world from that limited base. He ignores contradictory evidence such as the many benefits afforded by the new media ...
So I think, at least to me, that if such people can be considered as leading academics in their field, then its hard to take something like postmodern philosophy as seriously as any other field of science; it just appears like most of their conclusions are based on opinion and conjecture rather than on formal logical arguments.
There's actually another quote from Noam Chomsky on this issue, whom I generally think of as a pretty rigorous person (although maybe too biased against the US sometimes): Link to Transcript
What you’re referring to is what’s called "theory". And when I said I'm not interested in theory, what I meant is, I’m not interested in posturing–using fancy terms like polysyllables and pretending you have a theory when you have no theory whatsoever. So there’s no theory in any of this stuff, not in the sense of theory that anyone is familiar with in the sciences or any other serious field. Try to find in all of the work you mentioned some principles from which you can deduce conclusions, empirically testable propositions where it all goes beyond the level of something you can explain in five minutes to a twelve-year-old. See if you can find that when the fancy words are decoded. I can’t. So I’m not interested in that kind of posturing. Žižek is an extreme example of it. I don’t see anything to what he’s saying. Jacques Lacan I actually knew. I kind of liked him. We had meetings every once in awhile. But quite frankly I thought he was a total charlatan. He was just posturing for the television cameras in the way many Paris intellectuals do.
Therefore even as a question of intrinsic value, I would have serious concerns about going into philosophy if I wanted to seriously gain a better understanding of the fundamental nature of knowledge, existence, and reality (or our relationship to the world, amongst other things). I think perhaps the only saving grace might be its study of logic (propositional logic, modal logic), but I'm not even sure if this is exclusively in the domain of philosophy or whether it can be studied as part of a math degree.
Compared to something like pure mathematics - there you definitely can apply their work to the field of theoretical physics so it does have some instrumental value. But I think you'd agree that there is a positive perception on the value of pure mathematics in an intrinsic sense as well. Some equations may turn out to be useful in the physical sciences or elsewhere, but there is a joy, say, in understanding the fundamental theorem of calculus and how gloriously simple it is to find the area under some function, so long as you can find its antiderivative.
I think its because in math there is a level of real, intellectual rigor, so people feel safe studying it because they know they can take it seriously. With philosophy, even as an undergraduate, we had discussions with our teaching assistant asking why it is that so many works of philosophy seemed almost deliberately obscurantist.
So yeah. I would also guess that Dr. Hawking said philosophy is dead because philosophy has run out of ways to meaningfully build off of certain axiomatic truths, that it has more or less reached its limit. For further knowledge we have to refer to science.
|
@radscorpion9: There is good and bad philosophy, just as there is good and bad science (look up the Schön scandal or most recently the direct distortion of data over at Harvard). It would be crazy of us to say that because there is a good handful of celebrated scientists that have indeed messed with their data in unscientific ways and who have not maintained the rigour and care that science requires that therefore there is something inherently wrong with science as a practice and we should be insecure as to its value in doing the things that science is supposed to do.
Obscurantism was a bit of a cultural problem in French philosophy where at one time you had to be as obscure as possible to be taken seriously (see this article for details). The Germans had a bit of an issue with that after Hegel as well, mostly due to the influence of his thought, which unfortunately had people emulate his style of writing as well. Outside of the Hegelians, nobody comes to mind that has had a particularly horrible style, with Heidegger being somewhat of a modern exception. Regardless of the stylistic problems of some authors, I don't think it's fair at all to conclude that you therefore cannot take philosophy seriously.
But I think you'd agree that there is a positive perception on the value of pure mathematics in an intrinsic sense as well. Some equations may turn out to be useful in the physical sciences or elsewhere, but there is a joy, say, in understanding the fundamental theorem of calculus and how gloriously simple it is to find the area under some function, so long as you can find its antiderivative. Although I think pursuing mathematics can be done as an end in itself (i.e. 'intrinsically' valuable) and I can certainly relate to the joy of it, this nonetheless is an example of instrumental value: Mathematics has value because it brings us joy through our understanding of certain theorems and our application of them to problems, i.e. it is a means towards joy and joy itself is somehow good. A statement about the noninstrumental value of mathematics would be something like saying that it is a component of a person's well-being. In the other statement, what is implied is that joy is a component of our well-being, and since math leads to joy, math is therefore valuable as a means towards a component of our well-being, whereas here we can argue that math itself is a component of our well-being.
I'm not sure if it is, unless we specify "our" well-being as the well-being of a certain specific person who is really good at math and likes doing what he does. Otherwise we'd be committed to claiming that you can't have all the things that constitute well-being unless you do math, which is a bit of a shaky proposition.
|
Your understanding of science seems to be rather superficial. You make the mistake, a common one BTW, to equate science with engineering. While there is no engineering without science, they are not one and the same.
Modern science does what philosophy professes to do: deals with reality, the nature of things, energy, time, space, human behavior, human thoughts (including love, hate, lust, etc), etc.
In the past, we didn't have "science man", we had "natural philosopher". It's important not to mix the modern philosophers with the past ones. Old philosophy is by and large the science of today.
So with maybe one or two exceptions (setting on moral values and laws for a fair modern society), i to agree that philosophy is a relic of the past and doesn't serve humanity anymore. The methods, like introspection, are just outdated and have reached their limit. You have to look outward for knowledge.
|
In all these philosophy and sciences discussions there seems to be a strange asymmetry. People in the science camp claim philosopher's have little idea of what scienctists actually do, and most philosophers will agree. Understanding current scientific work is so obviously difficult that noone in there right mind would claim to understand it without the right education. On the other hand, the same argument is not accepted for the philosophy side. Somehow anyone who did 2 courses of philosophy (if any at all) feels like s/he exactly knows what philosophy is and what philosophers do, and the general public does not call these people out, because society operates on a caricature of philosophy.
If I'd ask a layman what they think philosophy is it would be answered with a picture of pure speculation, thinking in ivory towers, or some obscure ideas of freedom of the will or god. But actual philosophy can also be something like an attempt to calculate coherence of propositions taken from physics with neural networks, just to build an understanding of inference to the best explanation. But that's certainly not what a layman takes philosophy to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/TastosisHandShake.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/a2E0rrt.jpg)
