3 added 3 characters in body
source | link

The question „Is philosophy useless?“ has been discussed already in the early days of European philosophy: In his dialogue „Gorgias“ Plato simulates a discussion between the two persons S. and Ch. Person Ch. claims:

Even if a man has good parts, still, if he carries philosophy into later life, he is necessarily ignorant of all those things which a gentleman and a person of honour ought to know; he is inexperienced in the laws of the State,and in the language which ought to be used in the dealings of man with man, whether private or public, and utterly ignorant of the pleasures and desires of mankind and of human character in general.(484c,d) […] Philosophy, as a part of education, is an excellent thing, and there is no disgrace to a man while he is young in pursuing such a study (485a)

His opponent S. is an elder man who names himself a "lover of philosophy" (482a).

Both persons are fictitious. On one hand, Plato figures Socrates as person „S.“ – but it is debated, how much of his thoughts are due to the historical Socates and how much is due to Plato. Socrates in his apology (36c) describes the role of philosophy in his life as the ongoing task to improve the character and the knowledge of his fellow men. On the other hand, person „Ch.“ is the rhetorician Challicles – but it is debated whether he is a historical person and whether he is representative for the profession of rhetoricians.

To find out whether „philosophy is useful or useless for oneself“ one may ask oneself questions like:

  • If I‘m a faithful ChristChristian: Do Plato’s arguments in favour of the immortality of the soul actually confirm my believe in an afterlife in heaven?
  • Is my attitude concerning causation and indetermism influenced by Aristotle’s theory of the four causes?
  • How much does Hume’s claim mean to me that causality reduces to habituation?
  • How often in my life did I reach a moral decision after considering the problem in the light of Kant’s categorical imperative?
  • etc.

If I actually find some insights from philosophy, which I could not get by reflecting my own life experience, then philosophy was useful for me.

Anyhow, if I enjoy rethinking and questioning the thoughts of philosophers, why not doing philosophy as a hobby?

Of course, not every person has the same hobby and not every hobby fits to everybody.

The question „Is philosophy useless?“ has been discussed already in the early days of European philosophy: In his dialogue „Gorgias“ Plato simulates a discussion between the two persons S. and Ch. Person Ch. claims:

Even if a man has good parts, still, if he carries philosophy into later life, he is necessarily ignorant of all those things which a gentleman and a person of honour ought to know; he is inexperienced in the laws of the State,and in the language which ought to be used in the dealings of man with man, whether private or public, and utterly ignorant of the pleasures and desires of mankind and of human character in general.(484c,d) […] Philosophy, as a part of education, is an excellent thing, and there is no disgrace to a man while he is young in pursuing such a study (485a)

His opponent S. is an elder man who names himself a "lover of philosophy" (482a).

Both persons are fictitious. On one hand, Plato figures Socrates as person „S.“ – but it is debated, how much of his thoughts are due to the historical Socates and how much is due to Plato. Socrates in his apology (36c) describes the role of philosophy in his life as the ongoing task to improve the character and the knowledge of his fellow men. On the other hand, person „Ch.“ is the rhetorician Challicles – but it is debated whether he is a historical person and whether he is representative for the profession of rhetoricians.

To find out whether „philosophy is useful or useless for oneself“ one may ask oneself questions like:

  • If I‘m a faithful Christ: Do Plato’s arguments in favour of the immortality of the soul actually confirm my believe in an afterlife in heaven?
  • Is my attitude concerning causation and indetermism influenced by Aristotle’s theory of the four causes?
  • How much does Hume’s claim mean to me that causality reduces to habituation?
  • How often in my life did I reach a moral decision after considering the problem in the light of Kant’s categorical imperative?
  • etc.

If I actually find some insights from philosophy, which I could not get by reflecting my own life experience, then philosophy was useful for me.

Anyhow, if I enjoy rethinking and questioning the thoughts of philosophers, why not doing philosophy as a hobby?

Of course, not every person has the same hobby and not every hobby fits to everybody.

The question „Is philosophy useless?“ has been discussed already in the early days of European philosophy: In his dialogue „Gorgias“ Plato simulates a discussion between the two persons S. and Ch. Person Ch. claims:

Even if a man has good parts, still, if he carries philosophy into later life, he is necessarily ignorant of all those things which a gentleman and a person of honour ought to know; he is inexperienced in the laws of the State,and in the language which ought to be used in the dealings of man with man, whether private or public, and utterly ignorant of the pleasures and desires of mankind and of human character in general.(484c,d) […] Philosophy, as a part of education, is an excellent thing, and there is no disgrace to a man while he is young in pursuing such a study (485a)

His opponent S. is an elder man who names himself a "lover of philosophy" (482a).

Both persons are fictitious. On one hand, Plato figures Socrates as person „S.“ – but it is debated, how much of his thoughts are due to the historical Socates and how much is due to Plato. Socrates in his apology (36c) describes the role of philosophy in his life as the ongoing task to improve the character and the knowledge of his fellow men. On the other hand, person „Ch.“ is the rhetorician Challicles – but it is debated whether he is a historical person and whether he is representative for the profession of rhetoricians.

To find out whether „philosophy is useful or useless for oneself“ one may ask oneself questions like:

  • If I‘m a faithful Christian: Do Plato’s arguments in favour of the immortality of the soul actually confirm my believe in an afterlife in heaven?
  • Is my attitude concerning causation and indetermism influenced by Aristotle’s theory of the four causes?
  • How much does Hume’s claim mean to me that causality reduces to habituation?
  • How often in my life did I reach a moral decision after considering the problem in the light of Kant’s categorical imperative?
  • etc.

If I actually find some insights from philosophy, which I could not get by reflecting my own life experience, then philosophy was useful for me.

Anyhow, if I enjoy rethinking and questioning the thoughts of philosophers, why not doing philosophy as a hobby?

Of course, not every person has the same hobby and not every hobby fits to everybody.

2 deleted 6 characters in body
source | link

The question „Is philosophy useless?“ has been discussed already in the early days of European philosophy: In his dialogue „Gorgias“ Plato simulates a discussion between the two persons S. and Ch. Person Ch. claims:

Even if a man has good parts, still, if he carries philosophy into later life, he is necessarily ignorant of all those things which a gentleman and a person of honour ought to know; he is inexperienced in the laws of the State,and in the language which ought to be used in the dealings of man with man, whether private or public, and utterly ignorant of the pleasures and desires of mankind and of human character in general.(484c,d) […] Philosophy, as a part of education, is an excellent thing, and there is no disgrace to a man while he is young in pursuing such a study (485a)

His opponent S. is an elder man who names himself a "lover of philosophy" (482a).

Both persons are fictitious. On one hand, Plato figures Socrates as person „S.“ – but it is debated, how much of his thoughts are due to the historical Socates and how much is due to Plato. Socrates in his apology (36c) describes the role of philosophy in his life as the ongoing task to improve the character and the knowledge of his fellow men. On the other hand, person „Ch.“ is the rhetorician Challicles – but it is debated whether he is a historical person and whether he is representative for the profession of rhetoricians.

To find out whether „philosophy is useful or useless for oneself“ one may ask oneself questions like:

  • If I‘m a faithful Christ: Do Plato’s arguments in favour of the immortality of the soul actually confirm my believe in an afterlife in heaven?
  • Is my attitude concerning causation and indetermism influenced by Aristotle’s theory of the four causes?
  • Which weight hasHow much does Hume’s claim formean to me, that causality is the result ofreduces to habituation?
  • How often in my life did I reach a moral decision after considering the problem in the light of Kant’s categorical imperative?
  • etc.

If I actually find some insights from philosophy, which I could not get by reflecting my own life experience, then philosophy was useful for me.

Anyhow, if I enjoy rethinking and questioning the thoughts of philosophers, why not doing philosophy as a hobby?

Of course, not every person has the same hobby and not every hobby fits to everybody.

The question „Is philosophy useless?“ has been discussed already in the early days of European philosophy: In his dialogue „Gorgias“ Plato simulates a discussion between the two persons S. and Ch. Person Ch. claims:

Even if a man has good parts, still, if he carries philosophy into later life, he is necessarily ignorant of all those things which a gentleman and a person of honour ought to know; he is inexperienced in the laws of the State,and in the language which ought to be used in the dealings of man with man, whether private or public, and utterly ignorant of the pleasures and desires of mankind and of human character in general.(484c,d) […] Philosophy, as a part of education, is an excellent thing, and there is no disgrace to a man while he is young in pursuing such a study (485a)

His opponent S. is an elder man who names himself a "lover of philosophy" (482a).

Both persons are fictitious. On one hand, Plato figures Socrates as person „S.“ – but it is debated, how much of his thoughts are due to the historical Socates and how much is due to Plato. Socrates in his apology (36c) describes the role of philosophy in his life as the ongoing task to improve the character and the knowledge of his fellow men. On the other hand, person „Ch.“ is the rhetorician Challicles – but it is debated whether he is a historical person and whether he is representative for the profession of rhetoricians.

To find out whether „philosophy is useful or useless for oneself“ one may ask oneself questions like:

  • If I‘m a faithful Christ: Do Plato’s arguments in favour of the immortality of the soul actually confirm my believe in an afterlife in heaven?
  • Is my attitude concerning causation and indetermism influenced by Aristotle’s theory of the four causes?
  • Which weight has Hume’s claim for me, that causality is the result of habituation?
  • How often in my life did I reach a moral decision after considering the problem in the light of Kant’s categorical imperative?
  • etc.

If I actually find some insights from philosophy, which I could not get by reflecting my own life experience, then philosophy was useful for me.

Anyhow, if I enjoy rethinking and questioning the thoughts of philosophers, why not doing philosophy as a hobby?

Of course, not every person has the same hobby and not every hobby fits to everybody.

The question „Is philosophy useless?“ has been discussed already in the early days of European philosophy: In his dialogue „Gorgias“ Plato simulates a discussion between the two persons S. and Ch. Person Ch. claims:

Even if a man has good parts, still, if he carries philosophy into later life, he is necessarily ignorant of all those things which a gentleman and a person of honour ought to know; he is inexperienced in the laws of the State,and in the language which ought to be used in the dealings of man with man, whether private or public, and utterly ignorant of the pleasures and desires of mankind and of human character in general.(484c,d) […] Philosophy, as a part of education, is an excellent thing, and there is no disgrace to a man while he is young in pursuing such a study (485a)

His opponent S. is an elder man who names himself a "lover of philosophy" (482a).

Both persons are fictitious. On one hand, Plato figures Socrates as person „S.“ – but it is debated, how much of his thoughts are due to the historical Socates and how much is due to Plato. Socrates in his apology (36c) describes the role of philosophy in his life as the ongoing task to improve the character and the knowledge of his fellow men. On the other hand, person „Ch.“ is the rhetorician Challicles – but it is debated whether he is a historical person and whether he is representative for the profession of rhetoricians.

To find out whether „philosophy is useful or useless for oneself“ one may ask oneself questions like:

  • If I‘m a faithful Christ: Do Plato’s arguments in favour of the immortality of the soul actually confirm my believe in an afterlife in heaven?
  • Is my attitude concerning causation and indetermism influenced by Aristotle’s theory of the four causes?
  • How much does Hume’s claim mean to me that causality reduces to habituation?
  • How often in my life did I reach a moral decision after considering the problem in the light of Kant’s categorical imperative?
  • etc.

If I actually find some insights from philosophy, which I could not get by reflecting my own life experience, then philosophy was useful for me.

Anyhow, if I enjoy rethinking and questioning the thoughts of philosophers, why not doing philosophy as a hobby?

Of course, not every person has the same hobby and not every hobby fits to everybody.

1
source | link

The question „Is philosophy useless?“ has been discussed already in the early days of European philosophy: In his dialogue „Gorgias“ Plato simulates a discussion between the two persons S. and Ch. Person Ch. claims:

Even if a man has good parts, still, if he carries philosophy into later life, he is necessarily ignorant of all those things which a gentleman and a person of honour ought to know; he is inexperienced in the laws of the State,and in the language which ought to be used in the dealings of man with man, whether private or public, and utterly ignorant of the pleasures and desires of mankind and of human character in general.(484c,d) […] Philosophy, as a part of education, is an excellent thing, and there is no disgrace to a man while he is young in pursuing such a study (485a)

His opponent S. is an elder man who names himself a "lover of philosophy" (482a).

Both persons are fictitious. On one hand, Plato figures Socrates as person „S.“ – but it is debated, how much of his thoughts are due to the historical Socates and how much is due to Plato. Socrates in his apology (36c) describes the role of philosophy in his life as the ongoing task to improve the character and the knowledge of his fellow men. On the other hand, person „Ch.“ is the rhetorician Challicles – but it is debated whether he is a historical person and whether he is representative for the profession of rhetoricians.

To find out whether „philosophy is useful or useless for oneself“ one may ask oneself questions like:

  • If I‘m a faithful Christ: Do Plato’s arguments in favour of the immortality of the soul actually confirm my believe in an afterlife in heaven?
  • Is my attitude concerning causation and indetermism influenced by Aristotle’s theory of the four causes?
  • Which weight has Hume’s claim for me, that causality is the result of habituation?
  • How often in my life did I reach a moral decision after considering the problem in the light of Kant’s categorical imperative?
  • etc.

If I actually find some insights from philosophy, which I could not get by reflecting my own life experience, then philosophy was useful for me.

Anyhow, if I enjoy rethinking and questioning the thoughts of philosophers, why not doing philosophy as a hobby?

Of course, not every person has the same hobby and not every hobby fits to everybody.