8 added 1 character in body
source | link

The standard answer could be put in this way : " one does not ask, on the basis that he does not play any instrument, whether the conductor of the orchestra is usefuluseless." . Being " useful" ranks low on the scale of values. Philosophy is not there to serve, but to command or organize. It is the conductor of the orchestra of sciences.

This does not mean that scientists of all sorts should listen respectfully to the Philosopher, but that any scientist ( specialized scientist) is a philosopher when he asks himself the question of the usefulness of his own knowledge, that is the question to know to which extent his specialized knowledge serves the advancement of human wisdom.

Philosophy is not a discipline , a special knowledge, it is an attitude towards knowledge, it is the effort to make human knowledge itself useful , be this knowledge theoretical or even practical.

My answer is not a personal opinion, it is the standard answer in western philosophy ( Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, Husserl, etc.)

Remark .- It is a great mistake to confuse philosophy with erudition. Nothing is more common amongst philosophers than a severe critique of " vain erudition" , "useless knowledge".

The standard answer could be put in this way : " one does not ask, on the basis that he does not play any instrument, whether the conductor of the orchestra is useful." . Being " useful" ranks low on the scale of values. Philosophy is not there to serve, but to command or organize. It is the conductor of the orchestra of sciences.

This does not mean that scientists of all sorts should listen respectfully to the Philosopher, but that any scientist ( specialized scientist) is a philosopher when he asks himself the question of the usefulness of his own knowledge, that is the question to know to which extent his specialized knowledge serves the advancement of human wisdom.

Philosophy is not a discipline , a special knowledge, it is an attitude towards knowledge, it is the effort to make human knowledge itself useful , be this knowledge theoretical or even practical.

My answer is not a personal opinion, it is the standard answer in western philosophy ( Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, Husserl, etc.)

Remark .- It is a great mistake to confuse philosophy with erudition. Nothing is more common amongst philosophers than a severe critique of " vain erudition" , "useless knowledge".

The standard answer could be put in this way : " one does not ask, on the basis that he does not play any instrument, whether the conductor of the orchestra is useless." . Being " useful" ranks low on the scale of values. Philosophy is not there to serve, but to command or organize. It is the conductor of the orchestra of sciences.

This does not mean that scientists of all sorts should listen respectfully to the Philosopher, but that any scientist ( specialized scientist) is a philosopher when he asks himself the question of the usefulness of his own knowledge, that is the question to know to which extent his specialized knowledge serves the advancement of human wisdom.

Philosophy is not a discipline , a special knowledge, it is an attitude towards knowledge, it is the effort to make human knowledge itself useful , be this knowledge theoretical or even practical.

My answer is not a personal opinion, it is the standard answer in western philosophy ( Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, Husserl, etc.)

Remark .- It is a great mistake to confuse philosophy with erudition. Nothing is more common amongst philosophers than a severe critique of " vain erudition" , "useless knowledge".

7 added 24 characters in body
source | link

The standard answer iscould be put in this way : " one does not ask, on the basis that he does not play any instrument, whether the conductor of the orchestra is useful." . Being " useful" ranks low on the scale of values. Philosophy is not there to serve, but to command or organize. It is the conductor of the orchestra of sciences.

This does not mean that scientists of all sorts should listen respectfully to the Philosopher, but that any scientist ( specialized scientist) is a philosopher when he asks himself the question of the usefulness of his own knowledge, that is the question to know to which extent his specialized knowledge serves the advancement of human wisdom.

Philosophy is not a discipline , a special knowledge, it is an attitude towards knowledge, it is the effort to make human knowledge itself useful , be this knowledge theoretical or even practical.

My answer is not a personal opinion, it is the standard answer in western philosophy ( Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, Husserl, etc.)

Remark .- It is a great mistake to confuse philosophy with erudition. Nothing is more common amongst philosophers than a severe critique of " vain erudition" , "useless knowledge".

The standard answer is " one does not ask, on the basis that he does not play any instrument, whether the conductor of the orchestra is useful." . Being " useful" ranks low on the scale of values. Philosophy is not there to serve, but to command or organize. It is the conductor of the orchestra of sciences.

This does not mean that scientists of all sorts should listen respectfully to the Philosopher, but that any scientist ( specialized scientist) is a philosopher when he asks himself the question of the usefulness of his own knowledge, that is the question to know to which extent his specialized knowledge serves the advancement of human wisdom.

Philosophy is not a discipline , a special knowledge, it is an attitude towards knowledge, it is the effort to make human knowledge itself useful , be this knowledge theoretical or even practical.

My answer is not a personal opinion, it is the standard answer in western philosophy ( Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, Husserl, etc.)

Remark .- It is a great mistake to confuse philosophy with erudition. Nothing is more common amongst philosophers than a severe critique of " vain erudition" , "useless knowledge".

The standard answer could be put in this way : " one does not ask, on the basis that he does not play any instrument, whether the conductor of the orchestra is useful." . Being " useful" ranks low on the scale of values. Philosophy is not there to serve, but to command or organize. It is the conductor of the orchestra of sciences.

This does not mean that scientists of all sorts should listen respectfully to the Philosopher, but that any scientist ( specialized scientist) is a philosopher when he asks himself the question of the usefulness of his own knowledge, that is the question to know to which extent his specialized knowledge serves the advancement of human wisdom.

Philosophy is not a discipline , a special knowledge, it is an attitude towards knowledge, it is the effort to make human knowledge itself useful , be this knowledge theoretical or even practical.

My answer is not a personal opinion, it is the standard answer in western philosophy ( Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, Husserl, etc.)

Remark .- It is a great mistake to confuse philosophy with erudition. Nothing is more common amongst philosophers than a severe critique of " vain erudition" , "useless knowledge".

6 added 2 characters in body
source | link

The standard answer is " one does not ask, on the basis that he does not play any instrument, whether the conductor of the orchestra is useful." . Being " useful" ranks low on the scale of values. Philosophy is not there to serve, but to command or organize. It is the conductor of the orchestra of sciences.

This does not mean that scientists of all sorts should listen respectfully to the Philosopher, but that any scientist ( specialized scientist) is a philosopher when he asks himself the question of the usefulness of his own knowledge, that is the question to know to which extent his specialized knowledge serves the advancement of human wisdom.

Philosophy is not a discipline , a special knowledge, it is an attitude towards knowledge, it is the effort to make useful human human knowledge itself useful , be this knowledge theoretical or even practical.

My answer is not a personal opinion, it is the standard answer in western philosophy ( Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, Husserl, etc.)

Remark .- It is a great mistake to confuse philosophy with erudition. Nothing is more common amongst philosophers than a severe critique of " vain erudition" , "useless knowledge".

The standard answer is " one does not ask, on the basis that he does not play any instrument, whether the conductor of the orchestra is useful." . Being " useful" ranks low on the scale of values. Philosophy is not there to serve, but to command or organize. It is the conductor of the orchestra of sciences.

This does not mean that scientists of all sorts should listen respectfully to the Philosopher, but that any scientist ( specialized scientist) is a philosopher when he asks himself the question of the usefulness of his own knowledge, that is the question to know to which extent his specialized knowledge serves the advancement of human wisdom.

Philosophy is not a discipline , a special knowledge, it is an attitude towards knowledge, it is the effort to make useful human knowledge itself, be this knowledge theoretical or even practical.

My answer is not a personal opinion, it is the standard answer in western philosophy ( Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, Husserl, etc.)

Remark .- It is a great mistake to confuse philosophy with erudition. Nothing is more common amongst philosophers than a severe critique of " vain erudition" , "useless knowledge".

The standard answer is " one does not ask, on the basis that he does not play any instrument, whether the conductor of the orchestra is useful." . Being " useful" ranks low on the scale of values. Philosophy is not there to serve, but to command or organize. It is the conductor of the orchestra of sciences.

This does not mean that scientists of all sorts should listen respectfully to the Philosopher, but that any scientist ( specialized scientist) is a philosopher when he asks himself the question of the usefulness of his own knowledge, that is the question to know to which extent his specialized knowledge serves the advancement of human wisdom.

Philosophy is not a discipline , a special knowledge, it is an attitude towards knowledge, it is the effort to make human knowledge itself useful , be this knowledge theoretical or even practical.

My answer is not a personal opinion, it is the standard answer in western philosophy ( Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, Husserl, etc.)

Remark .- It is a great mistake to confuse philosophy with erudition. Nothing is more common amongst philosophers than a severe critique of " vain erudition" , "useless knowledge".

5 deleted 73 characters in body
source | link
4 added 4 characters in body
source | link
3 added 4 characters in body
source | link
2 added 4 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link