What do you think of when someone brings up philosophy?

I am taking a Business Ethics class currently at my college with a "philosophical basis for the content that you will be taught," according to the teacher. So on the first day of class she discusses Socrates and how it applies to current business morals and ethics for about 2 minutes and since that point philosophy or any relevant topics have never re-entered the discussion. I personally love philosophy and exploring all the topics that it covers and I do my best to always keep my mind open to the big picture that I think so many people around my age (17-19) fail to even acknowledge or attempt to understand.

So my questions are: What is the first thing that comes into your head when you hear someone bring up or talk about philosophy? Do you instantly want to discuss and debate/argue on philosophy and your differing opinions (assuming they are)? Do you believe that philosophy should be a required course at some point in public high schools?

For myself, it is what Socrates said; “The unexamined life is not worth living.” I try to enter philosophical or even just very in-depth
discussions / debates with my friends and people I meet (after examining the situation and the ability for the discussion to *hopefully* happen) but almost every time I am met with ignorance, no interest, or an uneducated mind and the whole situation has become so disheartening. I love having discussions and debates and just talking about the root of all evil, the meaning of life, contemplating existence, trying to decipher the emotions we are given, or just talking in "what ifs?". I believe that at a minimum a philosophy class should be required to graduate high school. That way there is at least an attempt to educate young citizens and students that they should look beyond what they are given and what they are told and look at the big picture with an open mind and without bias. Maybe that is why these opportunities don't exist?
This is my first thread/post in the SFA section so I hope I have followed all the rules and given an appropriate topic.

 

Philosophy will never become a mandatory subject because it would confront people with questions that they would rather not deal with. What would be the point in wasting time trying to teach a person about the very nature of our existence when they're just going to deny it in favour of "X" religion.

 

I really enjoy talking about those sorts of things as well, and unfortunately you're very correct in saying that it's hard to find people who share the interest. I also enjoy listening to all kinds of perspectives, but what really bugs me is pretension. I don't like condescending know-it-all's who want to do nothing but prove that they're smarter than you.


In any case, I think it's important for everyone to think about philosophical questions, but these days it's very easy to become distracted by materialism, and even easier to succumb to complacency. Like Akureyri said, the majority of people find that to not think about religion and philosophy makes their lives a whole lot easier. More often than not, they'll turn to trivial activities to keep themselves occupied, and when that happens, it becomes very easy to lose sight of what's important in the world; "society's problems are not my problems".

Although it would be nice to see philosophy introduced earlier on in high school, but if the students aren't really going to give a damn about it, and just treat like they would any other class, what would be point? Personally, I see people as the bigger problem, not our institutions.

 

Arguably one of the most detrimental factors to a discussion can be the people who simply wish to argue for the sake or arguing.

 

interesting convo

 

That is completely untrue. Arguments lead to places and concepts in the mind that otherwise would not be uncovered.


The same is true for philosophy. High school kids would listen to the existence of god/religion/politics/existence. The problem is that schools are fucking pussies and don't want to talk about things that are controversial outside of say one class debate in government. Arguably the most advanced country in the world is crippling their education system with political correctness.

Don't even get me started on the shitty slave books I was required to read for literature.....

 

Philosophy was the 'science' of the time, and thus has become very outdated in the modern day. We no longer use philosophy in an ill convinced attempt to understand the way things work around us, we now use the scientific method.

That is why philosophy will -never- be a required class, it simply doesn't make sense. Sure one can apply philosophical ideology to their daily lives, but when it comes down to it, it doesn't really mean much - philosophy is no longer needed to be a critical thinker.


Not entirely relevant, but it's how I feel about philosophy, and the general waste of time (to me) it is.

 

Philosophy deals with the fundamental problems of reality and existence. Where as science relies on what we perceive to be reliable knowledge, philosophy concerns itself with the search for true knowledge. It will never become outdated as it deals with the very nature of our minds and reasoning.

An inductive statement, arguments do no incur enlightenment. How can a person in search of conflict be beneficial to a person in search of truth?

 

Perhaps you could examine The Socratic Method. From discussion and argument enlightenment can easily occur. You can discover new ideas based on the other viewpoints or have an epiphany based on your prior intelligence.
From out of conflict the truth can arise.
Simple example: Two teenage guys get in a fight at a public school over a girl they both wanted to ask to prom. The two guys are best friends and neither could ask the girl out without getting their buddy's consent because they both knew they liked the same girl. Truth is, the girl would have said no to both of them. So after the fight in which one guy did win, the girl walked up to him soon after and said that she would not go to prom with him, whether he had asked before the fight or after. But had there not been the conflict (the fight between them in this case) both would have never known the truth: the girl didn't like either of them. So the guys were both in search of the truth for purely their own benefit and the conflict between them brought about the real truth.

 

No, philosophy concerned itself with rational thinking of a situation. This is clearly portrayed by Plato's Allegory of the Cave.

Philosophy was instrumental to critical thinking and the formation of the scientific method, however it currently serves little purpose since we've outgrown quite a lot of it.

 

Plato used the Allegory of the Cave to represent humanity's misconceptions of reality and the path we must take to find true enlightenment. It is a complex model designed to illustrate the struggles a philosopher must endure if they wish to experience complete awareness. Plato hoped it would encourage others to embrace philosophy and to become enlightened by it. The Allegory itself specifically aims to show the human development necessary during the search for true knowledge.

You are confusing "philosophy" with a "philosophical idea". Though many arguments from ancient Greece and China could now be considered irrelevant to modern philosophy, how can our ability to use logic and reasoning to examine reality and existence ever be outgrown?

 

Once again that is not the point. Enlightenment does not equate to arguments or concepts that otherwise would not be reached. Absolute truths are hard to come by. Multiple glimpses of the truth exist.

 

This statement has little to no bearing on an Eristic argument.

 

.... the only reason to incorporate philosophy in schools is to promote critical thinking. Eristic arguments promote critical thinking. The motive of an eristic argument may be wrong but that doesn't mean it can't reveal truth.

Please address the point of argument leading to new ideas/concept. If you can't dispute that point then I'm not going to continue talking to you.

 

You have proposed a number of statements within this thread as if they are absolutes. They are not. I do not dispute that arguments can lead to new concepts or further enlightenment, but it is also possible that they may not. Eristic arguments can promote critical thinking but they can also waste time and cause unnecessary conflict.

 

Umm, when someone brings up philosophy I think of random stuff about existance and proving strange things that make no sense. And then I turn to the philosoraptor

Despite my name, this is not a spam post. I'm being dead serious. Well, in a funny way. But not at all pointless and irrelevant