Any good ?

[jaywalker]

Hallo ,I'm new here so if you've discussed this already, forgive me. What I want to know is, Has any Philosopher's thoughts and or opinions Ever done anything for Man,or is it all Bunk ?

[Ray Moscow]

Yes.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Natural philosophers, yes (because that's what 'scientists' were before the term 'scientist' was invented). The rest...? Meh.

Well, I suppose there might be a trickle-down effect on things like slavery; maybe Paine's The Rights of Man; perhaps things like how we treat animals, that kind of stuff. And there's logic, which helps. But overall, I get more useful stuff out of my navel (which is where philosophers get their own ideas -- erm, their navels, not mine ;)).

[Eudaimonist]

Hallo ,I'm new here so if you've discussed this already, forgive me. What I want to know is, Has any Philosopher's thoughts and or opinions Ever done anything for Man,or is it all Bunk ?

That's a philosophical question. By asking the question, you are doing something for Man, since getting people to ask and answer questions is a beneficial thing. Philosophers do this sort of thing as well, and so they are doing something for Man too.

eudaimonia,

Mark

[Oolon Colluphid]

"I mean it as a compliment when I say that you could almost define a philosopher as someone who won't take common sense for an answer." -- Richard Dawkins

[Danhalen]

Hallo ,I'm new here so if you've discussed this already, forgive me. What I want to know is, Has any Philosopher's thoughts and or opinions Ever done anything for Man,or is it all Bunk ?Inasmuch as anyone's thoughts and/or opinions are helpful: yes.

[Alex]

Has any Philosopher's thoughts and or opinions Ever done anything for Man,or is it all Bunk ? Well, they've provided employment for professional philosophers.

[jaywalker]

Yes.

Was that meant to be enigmatic ?

[Oolon Colluphid]

Yes.

Was that meant to be enigmatic ?
What do you mean by 'meant'?

[Philosophickle]

Hallo ,I'm new here so if you've discussed this already, forgive me. What I want to know is, Has any Philosopher's thoughts and or opinions Ever done anything for Man,or is it all Bunk ?

Philosophers were the First to randomly Capitalize words absent a coherent Pattern.

[jaywalker]

Philosophers were the First to randomly Capitalize words absent a coherent Pattern.

I had hoped for friendship but Hey Ho. Does your sentence Have a meaning?

I won't attempt to tell you what 'Meant' means. This just leads to Explaining every word I use.

[dug_down_deep]

Does discussion of ideas do any good? Does thinking about stuff do any good? That is philosophy. Of course it does good. It helps us to think non-dumb stuff.

[4321lynx]

I look on the bible as a philosophical text, among the other things it is. And rabbe Hilliel had it right when he was asked to summarise & explain the first 5(was it?) books of it & he quoted what was later the golden rule saying: "It says, Do to others as you would have them do to you. The rest is commentary."

But that's too simple for most philosophers, they say it is really morals & ethics not "real philosophy", & proceed to argue about other minutiae for centuries.

[Barbarian]

Is Beauty the same as Truth? Especially when no one is looking at it?

[ofro]

A potential contribution of philosophy to science is ethics. (But even here common sense will generally suffice)

But many times a scientist can only shake his/her head when listening to philosophical discussions that are scientifically nonsensical or outright wrong. :dunno:

[Eudaimonist]

I look on the bible as a philosophical text, among the other things it is. And rabbe Hilliel had it right when he was asked to summarise & explain the first 5(was it?) books of it & he quoted what was later the golden rule saying: "It says, Do to others as you would have them do to you. The rest is commentary."

But that's too simple for most philosophers, they say it is really morals & ethics not "real philosophy", & proceed to argue about other minutiae for centuries.

But the Golden Rule really is overly simplistic. For example, it is unclear why following the Golden Rule is good, unless one can explain how and why. An unanswered question is: why should your desires for personal treatment form a valid standard for how other people should be treated?

Also, I don't think that I'm engaging in mental masturbation to prefer a rational virtue ethic approach, since that illuminates the issues much better than a simple "rule".


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Preno]

To answer the OP: sure, [philosophy] may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.

[Oolon Colluphid]

I won't attempt to tell you what 'Meant' means. This just leads to Explaining every word I use.
I was just teasing about what philosphers are like. The first (and second, and third... often the only) thing they do is try to work out what something means... sometimes at the expence of answering the original question (though they would say you can't answer it till you know what it means).

Ceci n'est pas une pipe. In true Macbeth mode, they'd be wondering "Is this a tiger I see before me, its dagger claws towards my throat? Come, let me AAAARRGH!"

[Oolon Colluphid]

Is Beauty the same as Truth? Especially when no one is looking at it?
If a tree falls on a creationist in the woods, does anyone care?

[Ray Moscow]

Is Beauty the same as Truth? Especially when no one is looking at it?
If a tree falls on a creationist in the woods, does anyone care?

Or did Goddidit?

[Jobar]

If you define "good" as something concrete, material, physical, then your answer is "no", at least if you separate science from philosophy. But the abstract ideas which are the meat and drink of philosophy shape the concrete world.

Societies benefit from philosophy in that they can apply its ideas to better solve problems, and in deciding which problems to solve. Individuals benefit in determining what constitutes "the good", so as best to live good lives.

[Barbarian]

Is Beauty the same as Truth? Especially when no one is looking at it?
If a tree falls on a creationist in the woods, does anyone care?This may depend on whether he is crushed or necessarily crushed.

[RBH]

Ceci n'est pas une pipe. In true Macbeth mode, they'd be wondering "Is this a tiger I see before me, its dagger claws towards my throat? Come, let me AAAARRGH!"Which is why Alvin Plantinga's argument that evolution is a self-defeating naturalistic theory fails: Critters whose perceptual and cognitive apparatus screws up their successful operation in the world wind up as the tiger's lunch. :D