What importance do you place on philosophy?

Many times I hear from people "oh, that is just a philosophical argument", using the term "philosophical" in as something bad. I would like to ask, what role do you think philosophy plays in the development of today's society. In ancient Greece, I hope we can all agree on this one, it had an enormous impact, but does it still have an impact today?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Miram · 31-35, F

Yesterday's philosophy is in every aspect of life. It is the basis of all human sciences and ethics.

But today philosophers seem to be expected to follow rigid intellectual rules or face being ridiculed by the assumed cognoscenti. By it's very nature, philosophy must have no social boundaries or it is self-defeating. It is by pushing beyond them that it helps us develop as species.

The day we define and thereby restrict philosophy is the day that philosophy admits to being moribund.

sumojumo · 36-40, M

@Miram I agree there should be as few restrictions as possible. But I also have to point out that there might be reasons for philosophers to follow rigid intellectual rules. In the past decades, there has been an enormous surge in quackery "philosophers". And by that I mean people that just throw some words together from various disciplines and hope to get some meaning out of it. Some of those quacks might be harmless, but others are not. So I think it is a noble thing to try to prevent people from assuming just about anyone can be a philosopher. Not every minestrone of words can be categorized as philosophy. :)

Miram · 31-35, F

@sumojumo

there might be reasons for philosophers to follow rigid intellectual rules.

Imposed by society? No, they don't have to.

sumojumo · 36-40, M

@Miram No, the ones imposed by the society of course not. But those imposed by the fact that there is quackery. Isn't that a legitimate reason to follow certain rules?

Miram · 31-35, F

@sumojumo That's a different topic. I consider all idealism quackery and the products are still a part of the body of knowledge.

sumojumo · 36-40, M

@Miram hm, well I am sure our views would diverge at a certain point if we focused on classifying what is quackery and what is not :). But I am also sure that there is a huge body of "philosophers" that we would both acknowledge the quackery. And I think it is more productive to focus on those first.

The main thing that I want to expose in this discussion is the fact that there is objective truth, and that some things are objectively crap. I think that I am so eager to deliver this message because of the current anti-science movements, which present themselves as "alternative". Of course, we might have a discussion on the methodology of establishing what is the truth, but again, not every opinion on this is equally valid.