Tell me a little about yourself...

William Gonzalez3 said:knowledge that doesn't have any practical use whatsoever.

So, what is that supposed to mean, that philosophy just covers philosophizing about immaterial, spiritual stuff?

Jonathan Brown6 said:So what, philosophy is just supposed to be about pondering all this airy-fairy, spiritual stuff?

Just look at questions like these:
Is there even such a thing as anything non-material? Does material stuff even exist? Like, what actually *is* matter? Is it even a "thing"? And honestly, what's the point of even trying to split things into "spiritual" vs "material"? Does that distinction even matter at all?

Those could totally be considered philosophical questions. Now, try applying your own logic to them: are those questions about spiritual things or material things?

And also—do any of these questions actually have some kind of "usefulness"?

Then, maybe even more importantly than all that: what even is "usefulness"? And is there any actual point to having "usefulness" in the first place?

Not quite.

I'd argue that philosophy is essentially a non-functional component of any science.

Think about it—an architect organizes physical space, whereas a philosopher spends their time questioning what "space" actually even is.

Philosophy attempts to study the whole picture. But, I suppose we can't truly grasp a non-functional part of the whole if we haven't first mastered the functional parts.

If nothing else, we need that distinction just to tell them apart.

In that sense, philosophy does involve studying the material world too. Even the earliest thinkers were known as natural philosophers.

They studied the physical world in an attempt to find universal truths within it—searching for prime causes and things of that nature.

The Executioner said:Philosophy isn't some desperate hunger for just any kind of information.

It’s an obsession with the most utterly useless knowledge imaginable.

Knowledge that lacks even a shred of practical application.

To actually be a philosopher, mere curiosity or a general drive toward learning simply won't cut it.

People hunting for "useful" insights? They aren't philosophers.

They want to know things so they can actually *do* something with them. If such a person wanders into philosophy, they're in for a bitter disappointment.

If someone enters this field thinking they'll become smarter, or better than everyone else, or find the meaning of life, or prove something—to themselves or to others (like the existence of Quincy)—then they have fundamentally missed the entire point.

There aren't nearly as many true philosophers as people think.

Most self-proclaimed philosophers are really just pragmatists who took a wrong turn and ended up here.

And there you go again, obsessing over those ghosts from the past. You'll never truly grasp their motivations or why they felt the need to philosophize; you can only speak for yourself, applying your own simplified template of how things "actually" are.

It doesn't really matter how many philosophers exist, nor is it particularly useful for you to exhaust yourself wrestling with the same questions that haunted someone like Kant. That isn't your fight...

Those who were dancing were seen as mad by those who couldn't hear the music.
Nietzsche

You mentioned earlier that anyone pursuing knowledge could be considered some kind of philosopher.

But I don't think that's quite right.

To me, it sounds a bit like saying anyone who picks up a hammer to build a house is an architect.

Sure, they’re building something, but only true architects can design structures that actually resemble real architecture—everyone else is just putting together little weekend cabins out in the suburbs.

It’s the same deal with philosophy.

There are certainly different types of philosophers, I suppose, but they are all tied together by their subject matter.

And the actual subject of philosophy is that part of existence that isn't practical or immediately applicable.

Once you've mastered the practical side of things, whatever is left over to study falls into the domain of philosophy.

The big, abstract questions—what time actually is and how we perceive it, the nature of space, what essence means, what being is, or even the essence of humanity itself...

I don't really need to know why any specific person decided to get into philosophy.

Their work tells you everything you need to know about their intentions. Usually, the branch of philosophy that gets dismissed most often—perhaps unfairly—is scholasticism. That's because the great minds behind scholasticism entered the field specifically intending to bend philosophy toward religious faith.

Because of that, those massive scholastic works are essentially attempts to reconcile the teachings of Plato or Aristotle with faith.
And the result? Most of the time, they only stick to that one specific slice of philosophy, and that whole area ends up being labeled as merely a servant to faith. I guess that's just what happens when you approach philosophy with a pre-existing agenda.

You talk about architects as if only an elite few—whatever that means—should be allowed to design houses. By that same logic, you suggest only the most prestigious philosophers deserve to offer any observations at all.
Such arguments might actually hold weight if we knew what the ultimate structure was supposed to look like, or what the "correct" philosophical answer to the average person's question should be.
Experience tells me there is no such thing as a universal truth that satisfies everyone, unless that truth somehow encompasses everything and everyone simultaneously. In other words, we shouldn't ignore anything or anyone under any circumstances, which is practically impossible. So, instead, we just pull a few select threads. We lose so much in the process, yet we cling to the illusion that we have the right to decide... when really, we’re just grasping at shadows.

Intent exists in philosophy (just like anywhere else) because there is a necessity for it. I don't know why, but I felt a sudden need to point that out here. Nothing exists in isolation; everything is tied to something else through cause and effect, part of a greater whole—however you want to define that self.
By suggesting a "bad" intent, are you implying there is such a thing as a "good" one? Does that mean the true reason—or perhaps just the most socially acceptable one—will eventually float to the surface?

I didn't say that philosophy contains good and bad intentions.
What I meant was—and this is important—that any intention whatsoever within philosophy is inherently flawed.

Philosophy is, at its core, a theoretical science.

The word "theory" actually stems from the Greek verb *theorein*, which essentially means pure, disinterested observation.

When you introduce an intention to a science that is supposed to be observing thought itself, you end up imposing constraints.
And those constraints—well, they dictate the very scope of one's perspective.
Eventually, the "house we are building" ends up conforming to those initial foundations—to that specific intention. In doing so, we lose sight of certain truths because our own eyes are effectively being framed by those limitations.

That is why any philosophy constructed with a preconceived agenda isn't truly "good," regardless of how logically sound it might seem or how strictly it follows the rules of the game.

My architect analogy is just that—an analogy. It’s imperfect, much like anyone who would use it.

The point is that philosophy does possess elements of a formal science.

It has its own dedicated field of study, its own specialized vocabulary, specific research methodologies, academic literature, and even established experts within this—let's call it—scientific discipline.

So, while anyone can offer observations, that doesn't mean everyone can claim to be a philosopher. That is really all I am trying to get across.

mistyfox812 said:Just look at these questions, for instance:
Is there even such a thing as something non-material? Is anything actually material? What even is matter? Is it even a "thing"? And what’s the point of distinguishing between the material and the spiritual? Does that distinction even mean anything at all?

Those could be considered philosophical questions, I guess. Now, take your own question and apply it to them: are those questions about spiritual stuff or material stuff?

And another thing—is there any actual "use" to these questions?

Well, there's always a use, or there isn't. If you believe these questions are useless, then I guess your whole life, all your thoughts, and everything else is useless too. But if you think they're useful—if you've learned something new just by asking yourself these things—then there's value in every single thought and reflection.

mistyfox812 said:And maybe more importantly than all those questions: what even is "utility"? Is there any point to having utility?

I mean, everyone knows what utility is... If you take it to the extreme, you'll end up questioning things exactly like you just did, and then suddenly, utility doesn't exist. But what kind of thinking is that, really?

"Philosophy is the craving for knowledge that has absolutely zero practical application."

But what does "practical application" even mean here? Is utility and practical application the same thing? I guess I see a practical application (or utility) in every bit of thinking—whether it's purely philosophical or aimed at a specific goal—because that knowledge helps when you're discovering new things. It'll help me later when I'm thinking about something else, or when I'm writing a book, or a poem, or putting my thoughts on paper, or explaining something to someone else... there are tons of ways to use philosophical thinking.

So...

Whether philosophy is a pursuit of the most useless knowledge imaginable, or a search for knowledge with a purpose—I think you'll always find a practical way to use that knowledge eventually...

Jonathan Brown6 said:Look, there's always a benefit, or there never is. If you think these questions are useless, then your whole life—all your thoughts, everything—is just pointless. But if you believe they matter because asking them helps you realize new things, then there’s value in every single thought you have.

I don't really get what you mean by "benefit," so I'm putting it back on you.

Jonathan Brown6 said:I mean, everyone knows what benefit means...

Using "everyone knows" might win you an election, but it's not exactly a philosophical argument.
Who is this "everyone"? Is it you? Or is it just some vague "they"? If you actually know, then just say it. 🙂

Jonathan Brown6 said:If you take it to the extreme, you'll end up thinking exactly how you phrased those questions, which would mean benefit doesn't exist.

I didn't say it doesn't exist, I'm just not sure if it does. I'm just asking—can we really judge everything based on whether it's "useful"? Like, look at you—you're alive. What's the "benefit" of that? 🙂
Everyone will tell you that you have an inalienable right to life, and I'm guessing you'd rather be alive than try anything else... So, is there any actual "benefit" there?
Don't you think we should probably question the idea of "benefit" instead of acting like it's just obvious?

Jonathan Brown6 said:What kind of thinking is that?

Philosophical. 😉

And I'll let William Gonzalez3 handle the rest, since those were his thoughts you were quoting anyway.
Personally, I'd say this whole split between theory and practice, or useful and useless, is just as shaky as that old divide between the spiritual and the material.

mistyfox812 said:I’m not really sure what you mean by "utility," so I guess I'll just ask you.
You can win an election using "common knowledge", but that isn't exactly a philosophical argument.

Who is this "everyone" who supposedly knows? It's probably just you, right? If you actually know, then maybe just say so. 🙂

Look, I definitely understand the context in which the word utility is used and what it actually represents.

You’re talking about utility like it’s some mystical, magical concept. If that's how you want to approach this, then I guess there's really no point in even talking. You could say that about literally anything—pretending you don't know what a thing is just because someone else hasn't explained it to you yet. If you genuinely don't know what utility means or how it functions in this context, then maybe just grab a dictionary and look it up.

Jonathan Brown6 said:I totally get it. I know exactly how that word is used and what it actually stands for.

Now we're talking. That's way better. 🙂

Jonathan Brown6 said:Man, you’re talking like "utility" is some kind of mystical, deep concept or something. If that's how you're gonna play it, then we don't even have anything to talk about. You could basically use that excuse for any word just because you don't get it and someone tries to explain it to you. Look, if you aren't 100% sure what "utility" actually means or how it's used in this context, just grab a dictionary and look it up. Simple as that.

It’s just like you said—words don't really mean anything until they're actually stuck in some kind of context. You can take the exact same word, throw it into two different situations, and it ends up meaning something totally different. Heck, you can even find contexts where the word just makes zero sense at all.

So, sure, "usefulness" makes perfect sense if we're talking about something like a 401(k) or a retirement fund. Totally straightforward. But I mean, does that word even work when you’re talking about philosophy? Like, if it does, what’s the point? Does it even carry any weight there? I don't know, man. It feels weird.

Jonathan Brown6 said:I honestly look for a practical payoff in everything I think about—whether I’m just spiraling into deep philosophical territory or trying to solve a specific problem. It's how my brain works. So, I gotta wonder... will all this insight actually stick? Like, is it gonna help me when I move on to a totally different topic? Will it be useful down the road when I'm sitting down to write a book, or maybe a poem, or even just trying to get my thoughts out on paper? I feel like there's so much room to use this kind of thinking—explaining stuff to people, journaling, whatever—but I really hope this mental heavy lifting pays off when I need it later.

If you think writing a book—you know, actually putting your thoughts on paper and trying to explain your take on deep philosophical questions to someone else—is what makes philosophy valuable... then you're basically just saying philosophy is useful for itself. Like, cool, but it doesn't actually serve any other purpose. That’s all you're really saying.
If we're talking about poetry or some other kind of book, then yeah, philosophy is huge for art. Honestly, I'm totally with you on that—philosophy definitely gives an artist something to chew on. But it makes you wonder... what's the actual point of art anyway? What good does it do us?

So, let me try to wrap this all up—it might get a little deep and abstract, but I really hope I'm making sense here.
Look, if you’re arguing that any human action—let's call it A—only matters if it serves some other purpose, B... then you're stuck in a loop. Like, once you say "A is useful for B," you immediately hit this wall: "Okay, but what is B actually useful for?" You end up in this endless cycle where either B is just useful for its own sake, or B is just a stepping stone to C. It's a total rabbit hole.
And so on.

You just gotta get there eventually.
Or we just end up at some "Z is only useful for itself and nothing else" kind of dead end.
So, you end up just spinning in circles, right? Like, you loop all the way back to "Z is useful for A," but then you’re stuck asking why that whole damn loop was even necessary in the first place. And just like that... boom. We're right back at square one.
Or it just stretches out forever, right? Which brings us back to the same old question... what's actually the point of an infinite sequence like that anyway?

So, here’s the big question: is there actually anything that isn't just useful for some other purpose? Like, does anything exist that's just inherently valuable on its own? Or maybe—and I don't know, maybe I'm overthinking this—would it be better to say "good" instead of "useful"?

When I talk about utility, I’m really referring to the practical application of knowledge.

Utility... well, it stems from the verb "to use"—using one thing as a means to achieve something else.

Philosophy isn't "useful" in that sense, mostly because it doesn't apply itself to any external practical task.
It doesn't have a purpose outside of itself.
Rather, it is its own end.
One of my favorite ways to look at this is through the lens of friendship. A friendship is only truly deep, honest, and real if it exists for its own sake.

If we decide to become someone's friend just to take advantage of them, then that relationship is inherently limited by that initial, selfish motive. It won't be sincere, and it certainly won't be deep—it will only last as long as the benefit remains, and once that usefulness vanishes, so does the friendship.

Of course, people derive benefits from friendship, just as they might from philosophy, but that benefit shouldn't be the primary reason we engage with a person or an idea. If it is, the connection becomes artificial and forced.

I apologize if my wording was a bit clumsy; I suspect that's likely what caused your confusion.

Sincerely yours,
William Gonzalez3

William Gonzalez3 said:Philosophy...
it doesn't have some external goal.
The whole point is just being itself.
One of my favorite ways to look at it is comparing philosophy to friendship. A friendship is only real, deep, and honest if it exists for its own sake.

If we only become friends with someone to get something out of them, that connection is stuck being limited by whatever selfish motive we started with. It’s not real, it isn't deep, and it’ll basically die the second that benefit disappears—just like that fake friendship dies along with the utility.

Look, obviously people get something out of friendships, just like they get something out of philosophy, but that "something" shouldn't be the reason we start the relationship. If it is, then the whole thing is just forced and totally superficial.

Spot on. 👍 🙂

The moderator actually split the debate about material vs. non-material stuff into its own thread: Is there anything non-material?

William Gonzalez3 said:philosophy isn't useful because it doesn't apply practically to anything.
it has no purpose outside of itself.

That's wrong. It does have utility. I mean, if nothing had any use, then nothing else in this world would be useful either, so that concept just falls apart.

William Gonzalez3 said:it is its own purpose.
one of my favorite analogies is comparing philosophy to friendship. friendship is only real, deep, and sincere if it is an end in itself.

There's a difference between purpose and utility.

William Gonzalez3 said:if we become friends with someone just to use them, our friendship will be limited by that initial motive we used to start the relationship. also, it won't be sincere or deep, and it will only last as long as the benefit lasts—once the utility dies, that fake friendship dies too.

I guess you can still form a friendship without some ulterior motive to exploit someone, and you'll still end up getting something out of it anyway.

William Gonzalez3 said:of course people get something out of friendship, just like they do from philosophy, but that benefit shouldn't be the reason we enter into a relationship with a person or a philosophy, because then the connection is just artificial and forced.

Fine... But you can't seriously claim that nothing has a purpose beyond itself. Everything has endless uses, purposes, and impacts.

I’ve decided to push back against any kind of manipulation or influence from those famous philosophers... because I truly believe I'm my own person, carving out my own unique path through life... I have no interest in following dogmas, though I'll always make room for a good debate.
...Call me an idealist if you want, but honestly, I feel so much lighter and more at peace now than I ever did during all those years spent absorbing everything I was taught about traditional religion...
I really feel like I’m not walking this road alone, either... and I'm confident that eventually, I'll cross paths with someone who sees the world through a similar lens...

You can't just shrug off outside influences.

Things leave their mark on you.

Philosophers leave their mark on you, too.

It’s pretty much unavoidable.

So, I suppose there isn't much point in trying to fight against it.

But honestly, it isn't all that bad—because, in reality, people tend to be influenced only by the ideas that actually resonate with them. For instance, a thinker like Heraclitus might not even make an impact on you at all.
While maybe Heidegger will.
By looking at which philosopher moves you the most, you can actually learn quite a bit about yourself.

The struggle is what keeps us going!

True, but I don't think all your opponents share that view.

And it’s certainly not the case that every philosopher would disagree with you, either.

Fair enough, maybe I went a little overboard with my last comment...

I’d much rather take the hit and run than stay stuck in the locker room acting like a coward.

To be honest—I have a lot more respect for the people who step up and face the music than I do for those who just sit on the sidelines.