SUPER PHILOSOPHY REFLECTION POST
Over the past two days, our class spent our time discussing two readings, Talk with me by Nigel Warburton and Why not just weigh the fish? by Robert Pasnau. Both readings provided basic insight into the world of philosophy, though possibly by some coincidence, they both included mostly negative points about the subject. More specifically, the second reading portrayed some of the darker shades of the world of philosophy by implying that the lack of pay in the profession drives most people away. As well, there seems to be some social stigma around the topic of philosophy. One reason for this would be that a lot of people doubt the usefulness of philosophy. It revolves around lots of thinking and it is unable to provide society with any sort of tangible goods that help our world. In short, it’s considered useless and serves no purpose.
However, the first reading also attempts to stress the importance of philosophy and how it impacts our world. While it’s no longer considered a science today, we could very well say that philosophy actually founded science and gave us a reason to create it. Our curiosity about the world gave us a purpose to find out more about it, and our sciences help us find out how the world works. That being said, although philosophy could’ve been the building blocks to creating our sciences, the question I’d like to pose to everyone is: Does it provide any use for us today? Once subjects like chemistry, biology, physics, psychology and the like started to kick off, do we even need philosophy anymore?
Moreover, what exactly makes people philosophers? Society seems to think that philosophers are merely just thinkers of the world. Going by that logic, considering that almost everybody has thoughts about where humans came from or what our purpose in the world is at least once, doesn’t that make everyone philosophers? If so, then why do we need a course on it? Continuing on, many of the philosophers we know today have gone through some sort of clinical depression or dark stage, for lack of better words. Why would they, fully knowing that they were feeling pretty sad and depressed, continue to pursue the subject? Humans typically tend to run away from things that don’t make them happy (naturally), so why is it that these big name philosophers kept pushing on? And finally, the most important question for me is: What exactly happens if they ever find out the answers to the world?
Anyhow, the first reading provided a comparison between solitary and group philosophy while the second reading compared science and philosophy. Personally, I don’t care. For me, I’ve always believed that things are just what they are. Science is science, philosophy is philosophy. Solitary and group philosophy are both the same to me. In the end, I believe whatever works for you is the best method. There’s nothing more to that.