You are a person who desperately needs philosophy, yet you seen incapable of understanding why you would need it. Science seems to have ruined you.
This canard has been raised several times in this thread. Yes, who will teach the physicists how to think? Who will teach the engineers how to put two and two together?
> Apparently you expect everything to be 1+1=2, which really is kind of sad.
If by this you mean I reject irrational thought, then yes, guilty as charged. This has nothing to do with my views on philosophy, though. Philosophy is a type of rational inquiry.
> Science seems to have ruined you.
Or perhaps math has ruined me, expecting everything to be 1+1=2? But isn't math an extension of logic, and logic a part of philosophy? Maybe philosophy has ruined me.
This is a very interesting thought. Is this something you came up with, or are you quoting any specific philosopher? I’d love to read more about this topic.
Scientistm being to science what nationalism is to patriotism.
https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/science-versus-scie...
You're moving the goal posts.
First you said:
"philosophy is utterly incapable of telling us what to make or do"
I gave you an example how philosophy is in fact capable of doing that, and it does so for many people (philosophers and non-philosophers alike).
Instead of granting the point, you move the goal posts.
Suddenly, philosophy being capable of telling us what to make or do is no longer good enough for you. Now you want answers to satisfy "most philosophers".
"You can ask a dozen physicists and they will all give you the same answer. Philosophy only tells you how to live if you ask exactly one philosopher. Ask a second, and you will be no better off than when you started."
Philosophy is not physics. There is no consensus on many of the problems that concern it.
Philosophy, by the way, is far from the only academic discipline that lacks such a consensus.
Harry Truman said "If you laid every economist in the country end to end, they would all point in different directions."
There are also many disagreements on fundamental issues in psychology, and probably many if not most other "soft sciences".
But philosophy is not a science, so why are you holding it up to scientific standards?
Art and music aren't sciences either, but most people recognize they have tremendous value anyway.
By the way, I've noticed that you're laser-focused on this consensus issue, while completely being unable to acknowledge that philosophy has value apart from the issue of whether it gives you answers that everyone can agree on.
How about philosophy's value in training the mind?
Please answer if you find that valuable.
How about philosophy's value in letting people question their own assumptions?
Do you find that valuable?
Or philosophy's value in letting you see things from a different perspective?
Can you specifically address these points instead of endlessly returning to the one point of philosophy not having answers that everyone can agree on?
I will make this one concession on reflection. It may help immunize one from simplistic explanations and just-so stories. It will not give one truth, but perhaps it will reveal the lie. The study of philosophy is a great way, for example, to disabuse someone of religious faith.
