I hate Philosophy.

[The Stranger]

Yeah philosophy is boring and useless, boring and useless people will tell other boring and useless people it isn't but it is. I get especially annoyed when someone backs up an argument with quoting one of these armchair-knowololigists

BUT KANT SAID

oh did he #cares

you are just hating cuz u dont get it XD

[Fragony]

you are just hating cuz u dont get it XD

It's rather easy, a page, you read it, what's on the page?, you write it down, points

[Hooahguy]

I find that philosophy can be interesting if its a discussion. But writing a paper on Kant's views is very tedious and borderline boring, IMO.

[The Stranger]

I find that philosophy can be interesting if its a discussion. But writing a paper on Kant's views is very tedious and borderline boring, IMO.

writing a paper on kants views is not philosophy. it is history of philosophy... you do not do anything yourself that can be remotely considered philosphy, all you do then is learn and recite the words of others.

use the words of kant to forge your own views or dont use them, whatever you like, but as long as you dont create but only recite you are not a philosopher but a historian.

and i dont think history is boring, mind you, the ideas of other people can be very interesting and also useful to make your own.

[Subotan]

I find that philosophy can be interesting if its a discussion. But writing a paper on Kant's views is very tedious and borderline boring, IMO.

Stuff like that really depends on the philosopher. Nietzsche and Marx, to pick two completely unrelated examples, are both much more interesting to read. E.g.:

O my brothers! With whom lies the greatest danger to the whole human future? Is it not with the good and just?-
-As those who say and feel in their hearts: "We already know what is good and just, we possess it also; woe to those who still seek thereafter!
And whatever harm the wicked may do, the harm of the good is the harmfulest harm!
And whatever harm the world-maligners may do, the harm of the good is the harmfulest harm!
O my brothers, into the hearts of the good and just looked some one once on a time, who said: "They are the Pharisees." But people did not understand him.
The good and just themselves were not free to understand him; their spirit was imprisoned in their good conscience. The stupidity of the good is unfathomably wise.
It is the truth, however, that the good must be Pharisees- they have no choice!
The good must crucify him who creates his own virtue! That is the truth!
The second one, however, who discovered their country- the country, heart and soil of the good and just,- it was he who asked: "Whom do they hate most?"
The creator, hate they most, him who breaks the law-tablets and old values, the breaker,- him they call the law-breaker.
For the good- they cannot create; they are always the beginning of the end:-
-They crucify him who writes new values on new law-tablets, they sacrifice to themselves the future- they crucify the whole human future!
The good- they have always been the beginning of the end.-

And

The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch.

HNNNNNNNNGGG

[phonicsmonkey]

It is true that some people do not value abstract thought for its own sake and consequently find the exercise boring because they cannot see a practical application in it.

As a philosophy graduate myself I would argue that the very practice of philosophy trains the brain to think in a critical and sceptical manner which is extremely valuable in life including the modern workplace.

What is also very valuable is developing the skill of argument.

Not just ranting on about your point of view but taking other points of view into consideration, synthesising them with your own and being able to communicate persuasively to win people over to your side. Influence, to put it another way. Something that, again, is extremely valuable in the modern corporate environment.

But to those who would reject these benefits I would put the case that philosophy spawns other disciplines.

For example what started as philosophy became physics once more is known. In fact all of the sciences were once part of philosophy.

So it can hardly be dismissed as useless.

[The Stranger]

synthesising them with your own and being able to communicate persuasively to win people over to your side.

plato would slap you flat in the face and call you a sophist.

[Fragony]

plato would slap you flat in the face and call you a sophist.

Sophists are also philosophers; best argument always wins not the most moral one. See there we have it PLATO SAYS but he is an authority in wut for wut

[phonicsmonkey]

plato would slap you flat in the face and call you a sophist.

[Thunder Mist]

Philosophy are other people's ideas. Talk to as many people as you can in your city. Do you understand them and who they are? Not really. So why would you think that understanding the thoughts of someone who lived 50-4,000 years before you would be any easier?

Haha, I like this. Gave me a good laugh.

I find that philosophy can be interesting if its a discussion. But writing a paper on Kant's views is very tedious and borderline boring, IMO.

I won't pretend to be an expert on the broad subject of philosophy, but I also won't deny that I know how to thoroughly write a good paper. However, give me a topic that utterly refuses to fascinate me, and I will go jump off a building.

I think we have some common ground, Hooah.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Haha, I like this. Gave me a good laugh.

Whatever. Philosophy isn't truth. For the most part it isn't anything practical. All they are, are ideas and thoughts conceived by other people, shaped by their own personality. It can help you expand your mental capacity because you are just essentially placing yourself in the mind of someone else. All it is at it's heart it putting yourself in someone elses shoes. Trying to hype up philosophy as something super duper important or incredibly meaningful in anyway is opinion, not fact. I love chemistry and I think a lot of basic chemistry is stuff that the average public should know, but am I going to say it is important in any way? No, because that isn't true.

[The Stranger]

and who are you to decide what is true or not? stick true to what you said previous, in terms of consistency, and say that it is your mere opinion that chemistry is nothing important.

besides the importancy of philosophy is not equal to its value. unimportant things can have great value, money/gold, people, pretty much everything we hold of value has no importance in the great scheme of things.

[a completely inoffensive name]

and who are you to decide what is true or not?

I am ACIN, and have the same standing as anybody else to comment on what is true or not. I'm not holding a gun to your head telling you to listen to what I have to say.

stick true to what you said previous, in terms of consistency, and say that it is your mere opinion that chemistry is nothing important.

It isn't inconsistent. I don't think anything or any subject is something that is important to know for everyone. Hence I don't think that chemistry is important and hence someone saying that philosophy is important is not a fact but an opinion that I think is wrong.

besides the importancy of philosophy is not equal to its value. unimportant things can have great value, money/gold, people, pretty much everything we hold of value has no importance in the great scheme of things.

I don't recall saying that philosophy has no value. I pretty much agree with the end of your statement there.

Then again, if we were to look at philosophy degrees from an economical standpoint...

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Whatever. Philosophy isn't truth. For the most part it isn't anything practical. All they are, are ideas and thoughts conceived by other people, shaped by their own personality. It can help you expand your mental capacity because you are just essentially placing yourself in the mind of someone else. All it is at it's heart it putting yourself in someone elses shoes. Trying to hype up philosophy as something super duper important or incredibly meaningful in anyway is opinion, not fact. I love chemistry and I think a lot of basic chemistry is stuff that the average public should know, but am I going to say it is important in any way? No, because that isn't true.

And it's still a useless subject.

[Subotan]

And it's still a useless subject.

That sentiment is only ever held by people who lack the mental ability to actually do it.

For example, would you say that Rousseau's contributions to political theory were "useless"?

Let us draw up the whole account in terms easily commensurable. What man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty and an unlimited right to everything he tries to get and succeeds in getting; what he gains is civil liberty and the proprietorship of all he possesses. If we are to avoid mistake in weighing one against the other, we must clearly distinguish natural liberty, which is bounded only by the strength of the individual, from civil liberty, which is limited by the general will; and possession, which is merely the effect of force or the right of the first occupier, from property, which can be founded only on a positive title.
We might, over and above all this, add, to what man acquires in the civil state, moral liberty, which alone makes him truly master of himself; for the mere impulse of appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law which we prescribe to ourselves is liberty.

[The Stranger]

It's rather easy, a page, you read it, what's on the page?, you write it down, points

more the fool, you!