From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!psinntp!norton!brian Wed Feb  5 11:56:39 EST 1992
Article 3443 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:3443 sci.philosophy.tech:2028
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!psinntp!norton!brian
>From: brian@norton.com (Brian Yoder)
Subject: Re: MUST Philosopy be a Waste of Time?
Message-ID: <1992Feb04.011418.5433@norton.com>
Organization: Symantec / Peter Norton
References: <1992Feb03.053748.28400@convex.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1992 01:14:18 GMT

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

> 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 what you are saying is that you see philosophy as a game rather than as
a serious study of an important subject.  Why should I take you seriously
in your writings then if you admit that you are not serious about them yourself?
 
> ...
> >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? 

Since I don't consider matters of fact to be properly decided by vote, no.
Philosophy is the study of the broadest abstrations important to life.  That
includes questions like "What is the universe really like?  Does it exist?"
and "What is knowledge?  How can I know things are true?  What is truth anyway?"
and "What is life all about?  Why I am I here?" and "What should I do with my
knowledge?  Is it all just a waste of time?  Should I care about anything?".
If you wish to defend your position that "Philosophy is just entertaining 
word play." you need to be able to explain why you think your definition is
valid.  Appeals to authority are not good enough.
 
> 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?

If by that you mean that philosophy can shape a man's character in the same 
way that playing basketball in school can, then it has some value, but only in
the most superficial sense.  Studying the genetic mechanisms and mating habits
of ghosts could yeild the same kind of results too.  My point was that the 
ANSWERS that come out of philosophical discussions need to have some kind of
value.  If you are looking for the other kind, why not just do crossword puzzles?

It sounds like you are just saying that you like to talk/write in endless 
arguments and you really don;t think that the applicability or truth of the 
answers you arrive at is important.  Perhaps you ought to put something like
that as a disclaimer in your .signature file.

> 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.

You really think so? Where do you get your original starting data from which
to reason if not from "empirical" observation?  Are we being a bit rationalistic
here?  It sounds like you have a nasty case of analytic/synthetic dichotomitis.

-- 
-- Brian K. Yoder (brian@norton.com) - Q: What do you get when you cross     --
-- Peter Norton Computing Group      -    Apple & IBM?                       --
-- Symantec Corporation              - A: IBM.                               --
--


