Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Arts & HumanitiesPhilosophy · 1 month ago

Is philosophy a good thing to learn? ?

20 Answers

Relevance
  • F
    Lv 6
    1 month ago

    Whoa! Slow down. We first have to establish, do we really exist before we can contemplate philosophy.

  • 1 month ago

    Yes and no.

    You need to make up your own mind because all philosophers have dead and you are the only one in your world.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_(spiri...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordicism

  • Raja
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    A philosopher never falls out of unbearable sorrow and never loses control out of overwhelming joy. A right philosophy keeps the mind in tact and paves the way to live a life of tranquility.

  • 1 month ago

    You cannot learn philosophy, since philosophy is not a theory or a doctrine. You can do philosophy and train for that. You have to study philosophy in order to be able to do philosophy yourself. But philosophy is an activity, it consists in the clarification of concepts.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 1 month ago

    Yes, if it's taught correctly.  Learning about other people's points of view, especially when they don't align with your own biases and cultural values, helps give you a greater landscape of ideas to make better decisions.

  • Tropos
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    Philosophy is a broad and general concept of inquiry. It can be taken in different ways, from inquiring into the meaning of a God/Yahweh, to inquiry into the meaning of non-religious "life" or of language/mind. That's why you have very different fields of philosophy. Some like Aquinas are technically philosophers, but focus within a particular assumption, that Yahweh exists, the Bible is at least partially true, etc. While other philosophers enter much broader and interesting subjects of inquiry. Personally I suggest people like Ludwig Wittgenstein and Bertrand Russell, depending on your current interests.

  • P
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    If it interests you then yes it's a good thing to learn. But by far it's a better thing to practice in your life

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    Philosophy will learn you to think critically and have interesting conversations

  • j153e
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    Philosophy might be understood as generalized hypothesizing after contemplation.

    More specific hypothesizing allows testing within atomic data parameters; this is "science," or knowing about atomic things and processes.

    Generalized hypothesizing may be about any topic or subject,  The general hypothesis is preferably developed logically.  What one is interested in may equate with Greek axios, "that which is worthy or worthwhile."  Thus if Socrates has a problem with his wife, philosophy may generalize in that problem-solving direction.  Or, if Plato or Parmenides have an interest in the beautiful or permanent, philosophy may generalize in those directions.

    The most obvious sections so far are termed axiology, or the study of values, what is worthwhile.  For Socrates, ethics; for Plato, aesthetics.

    While Parmenides' worthwhileness may obviously be axiological or what he deems worthwhile, it is called ontology and metaphysics--what are the real and first principles.

    The remaining general section of philosophy is epistemology, or what Heraclitus termed the ever-flowing river of Kantian 5-sense data.

    Obviously, the three or four main foci in general hypothesizing tend to begin with an individual doing their own hypothesizing.  Reinventing the philosophical wheels is generally less efficient than a) knowing what's worthwhile to you and b) after you contemplate it, reading germane philosophies.

    Obviously, the Venn diagram of the 3-4 areas has 3-4 overlapping circles.  All philosophy is axiological--problem-solving or additional being-cognition/realization.  All philosophy is ontological--you are in Descartes' notion of God, Mind, and you.  If you're an honest agnostic (atheism being illogical, unless it simply doesn't find God-evidence real, which for that type of atheism is simply honest agnosticism--keeping an open mind, perhaps developing one's spiritualized sensibilities), you mostly have you, and contemplation of you in nature and nurture (atoms and society).  All philosophy is epistemological--how does one know that one is (Descartes, again), is self a construct of existence (Sartre), or of essence (Aquinas), etc.

    Epistemology in philosophy historically gives relative certainty, but never absolute certainty, about a given topos or subject.  This is explained in Godel's Incompleteness Theorems (book:  "There's Something about Godel").  Metaphysics or ontology in philosophy historically gives a range of awareness that extends to and from Absolute Being (Plotinus' "One Mind Soul;" book:  "Return to the One:  Plotinus's Guide to God-Realization") to relative positions such as Sartre's "existence underlies essence," which essentially takes off the table any God-realization, unless one goes the route(s) of e.g. Husserl (books:  "Ideas" and "Cartesian Meditations") and/or Whitehead (books:  "Adventures of Ideas" and "Process and Reality"), or of Christian existentialists such as Maritain, et al.

    Axiology as ethics is therefore developed of epistemology and ontology, and is fairly personal.  Kant developed ethics in (books) "Critique of Pure Reasoning" and "Opus Postumum," and Pojman's books "Ethical Theory" and "The Moral Life" are helpful.  As for beauty, Kant's book "Critique of Judgment" and Plato's "Republic" ("book" 10; see also "book 6" for analogies) are some standards.

    Quee Nelson's "The Slightest Philosophy" is worthwhile, as is Tom Morris' "Philosophy for Dummies," useful despite its deprecatory title.  Paul Johnson's "The Intellectuals" and Ben-Ami Scharfstein's "The Philosophers" and "A Comparative History of World Philosophy" are also good for perspective.

    In a society of increasing anti-God or reductionist secular materialism, "philosophy" as a general hypothesizing perspective is worthwhile, when encountering dogmatic groupthink of the day, e.g. marxism in sociology, and reductive positions in psychology.  Wittgenstein generalized this dichotomy:  if one values more the scientific data, one is doing philosophy of said data; if one values more the philosophic general hypothesizing, one is doing philosophy about said data; i.e., within the frame of accepted axioms of a given science, or within the frame of questioning even the axioms of a given science or other locus of contemplation.  If a society were increasingly God-oriented, a general philosophic hypothesizing about the ontological quality of said religiosity, the epistemological surety of said religiosity, and even the axiology or preferred beliefs would be valuable as a quality assurance check re religious claims or dogmatism.

  • 1 month ago

    We all have a philosophy most of us don't know what it is but you could look up the word philosophy and find out what your's might be.

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.