From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!convex!cash Wed Feb  5 11:56:27 EST 1992
Article 3424 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:3424 sci.philosophy.tech:2024
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!convex!cash
>From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: MUST Philosopy be a Waste of Time?
Message-ID: <1992Feb03.053748.28400@convex.com>
Date: 3 Feb 92 05:37:48 GMT
References: <1992Jan31.161250.12160@convex.com> <1992Feb01.030627.520@norton.com>
Sender: usenet@convex.com (news access account)
Organization: The Instrumentality
Lines: 40
Nntp-Posting-Host: muse.convex.com
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1992Feb01.030627.520@norton.com> brian@norton.com (Brian Yoder) writes:

>Excuse me, but why should anyone care about "possiblities" which you can't
>demonstrate are possible?  You are saying here that the purpose of
>philosophy is to study things that never come up in reality (chinese
>rooms, duplicator machines for people, time machines, etc.).  I have to
>ask...why should someone with such a definition want to bother with
>philosophy?  I certainly don't accept your idea of the purpose of
>philosophy and therefore I see good reasons to study it.  You on the other
>hand don't have any such excuse.

I bother with philosophy because I find it interesting. I like many
impractical things that do not contribute in the least to putting a roof
over my head or filling my tummy, and I value these things above my merely
practical undertakings. I like--among many other things--chess, music, and
good conversation. I would not like to live in a world that did not contain
these things.

...
>So can we conclude from this that you do not believe that philosophy has any
>practical implications or applications?  What utter nonsense.  

"Utter nonsense?" I suppose that you can say that philosophy is anything
you like--but don't you think you should take into account the opinions of
those who have studied the field? 

As for philosophy having no "practical impliations or applications"--that
depends on what you mean. The study of philosophy might, for example, shape
a man's character. That is "practical", isn't it?

Philosophy is not an _empirical_ endeavor: any question that can be decided
by an experiment is not a philosophical question, and is in the realm of
science.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


