Why do normies measure the value of philosophy solely by how directly it affects their day-to-day life? And why does anything even slightly abstract get dismissed as thinking for the sake of thinking, or as socially acceptable pedantry? It's needlessly close-minded.Whenever I study something in metaphysics or moral philosophy, for example, it may not influence me in the short term but it shapes how I think over time, and that shift can surface later in what I create, depending on how critically I engaged with the ideas I studied. Political philosophy seems to be the only branch most people readily accept.
bump
>>25459230A core tenant of liberalism is that metaphysical truths and any ultimate goodness or proper ordering of the appetites (or of aesthetics) is either unknowable, something "we decide," or irreducibly plural. The hegemonic system for the entire global economy is based on those premises. So, no shit they are indoctrinated into us from birth. Liberalism is not unique in being the only order to not indoctrinate its young, it just lies about it more.
>>25459230Philosophy is all about argument, and argument is impolite. People bring up a vanilla excuse to get away from you bringing up the existence of God at the dinner table. If an argument is based on an obviously wrong premise, like the four Aristotelian elements, then the question becomes why is it more interesting than an argument that is more likely to be correct. And this varies based on the argument. People will raise an eyebrow if you lecture them on alchemy, but if you can be entertaining, they won't dismiss you. Unless they're the kind to only read nonfiction.
because people have been taught by the internet to seek definite, practical answers. what people desire is "the answers" to the hard questions in life. something like a comprehendable and comprehensive universal theory to live by. what you're describing OP is critical thinking. learning for the sake of opening yourself up to new understanding or just critical thinking
>>25459230Normies do not think about how thinking about something in a particular way today will affect their ability to think about things a particular way in the future. Normies barely think about things at all.
The average person is incredibly stupid and genuinely doesn't "think" about anythingInformation either a) fits their world view or b) can be somehow retrofitted to fir their worldviewAnything else can be safely discarded by them
>>25459230they know inherently what Aulus Gellius said two millennia ago: ‘I hate men whose words are philosophical but whose deeds are base.’
>>25460950But that came from the philosopher Epictetus. I don't think normies have that strong an insight. But it also doesn't really seem connected to OP, which is about the demand that philosophy be practical and utilitarian. To speak to that, it seems to be just as much an ancient attitude, as related in a story about Euclid:>Someone who had begun to read geometry with Euclid, when he had learned the first theorem, asked Euclid: "But what shall I get by learning these things?" Euclid called his boy and said: "Give him three cents, since he insists on making a profit out of what he learns."What's probable is that philosophy, in being investigative, also investigates our desires and the objects of our desires, but those desires might be too strong for most people to overcome. It takes a very detached person to be okay with gain and pleasure not mattering so much.
>>25459230If something doesn't offer a practical benefit, then it's little more than a personal interest. There's nothing wrong with that, but not everyone has the same interests, and most people just aren't going to be interested in the kinds of questions impractical philosophy examines. It's like a Tolkein-head wondering why nobody cares about the lore of Numenor.
>>25459230>Few men think, yet all will have opinions-Berkeley
>>25460975>But that came fromwdym? it’s a quote from Gellius’ Attic Nights.& it’s perfectly relevant for OP (who allows himself a little curl of contempt in talking about the ‘normies’). RE the ancients: Archimedes would interrupt his contemplations in order to put some of them to practical use. But the point isn’t necessarily that metaphysics is worthless (though that’s not an untenable position), but it’s worth doesn’t require that faint air of injured superiority, nor the unfalsifiable ‘this horse will definitely come in’ defence. Do the reading because you like it, that’s reason enough, and it has the merit of being honest, which ‘it’ll surface later in what I create’ conspicuously is not.
>>25461012>wdym? it’s a quote from Gellius’ Attic Nights.Sure, Gellius says that Favorinus relates it from Epictetus. It's a view of some people who pursue philosophy by another philosopher.I don't think OP is talking about practicality in the sense of contributing to a good and decent character, but a certain attitude of "does metaphysics help me live longer, or balance the national budget, or stop wars, or make me a lot of money? No? Dropped."
>>25460978>If something doesn't offer a practical benefit, then it's little more than a personal interest. There's nothing wrong with that.As I say in the OP, though, there is a practical, albeit long-term benefit depending on how you've consumed the ideas being presented. And this doesn't apply to someone reading about it after the fact and dismissing it as trivial or overthought nonsense, because it's the first step that I'm saying gets vilified.
>>25461082ah I see what you mean.I also didn’t mean ‘does it make me a better man?’ - I was making my case for OP being an example of what Epictetus/Favorinus/Gellius hates. Which I could continue here with your sneering at ‘does this help me not starve?’ as if it’s a moral failure.
>>25459230Theory is in itself of no use. How can a man come to know himself? Never by thinking, but by doing. Try to do your duty, and you will know at once what you are worth.
>>25461217>Which I could continue here with your sneering at ‘does this help me not starve?’ as if it’s a moral failure.It seems a little silly, and itself an example of injured (moral) superiority, to equate bottom-line thinking with any desire for necessary help. Besides, Epictetus' own schtick is concerning oneself only with what's in one's own power to change and control, and accepting what one cannot, which stands in some tension with what you're saying. Is a longer life automatically better than a shorter one only because it's longer? Decent philosophy will interrogate that.
>>25461239>concerning oneself only with what's in one's own power to change and control, and accepting what one cannotisn’t that just exactly (and I mean exactly) where I stood on it?All this reminded me of a poem actually.
>>25461261That didn't seem evident to me, precisely because you switched out my actual examples (people expecting the impossible or for merely excessive or luxurious goods) with "does this help me not starve," no one who's starving is expecting anything from philosophers, but the normies OP is talking about (and you can readily see them on this board and elsewhere) do. Besides, and again, Epictetus (who I only bring up because you seem to treat his quote with some authority) would say that sometimes you have to accept starving if there isn't any help to be had.
>>25461284semantics.
>>25459230because they are not transcendent, they are stuck on the material plane. or they are anglo utilitarian filth
>>25460267>what you're describing OP is critical thinkingI would say they go hand-in-hand, and I said before, to think philosophically IS to seek practical answers in terms of how they influence your actions or the way you go about them.
>>25459230The problem with philosophy is that only smart people can actually attempt to appreciate or understand it. the normal fag equivalent is religion. fortunately they are not mutually exclusive. it's just that most people are too stupid to be atheist, but almost everyone can do just fine while religious.
>why don't normies care how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? I even expressed all of my pointless sophistry in impenetrable academic jargon!Truly an insoluble problem that has troubled philosophers for centuries.
