Philosophy is Useful

An argument to the effect that philosophy is actually useful to computers, ethics, arguments and interdisciplinary communication, in spite of comments form Neil Degrasse Tyson.

Sponsors: João Costa Neto, Dakota Jones, Joe Felix, Prince Otchere, Mike Samuel, Daniel Helland, Mohammad Azmi Banibaker, Dennis Sexton, Yu Saburi, Mauricino Andrade, Will Roberts, Greg Gauthier, Christian Bay, Joao Sa, and √2. Thanks for your support!

Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy and more!

[justinlacek]

I always tell people that philosophy is the one thing that I feel legitimately made me a smarter, clearer-thinking person. Yeah, math, psychology, chemistry and stuff taught me a lot, but philosophy is the only thing that I ever felt made a serious impact on how I think/analyze things in the world.

[mountainking]

Im glad I found your channel. I recently picked up a book called the "The story of Philosophy" by Will Durant. Ive only had it for short time and has made had opened my eyes to how skepticism and reasoning helps us solve practical world problems. My favorite example is politics, should we let everyone have a say in how we run our government or should we leave it to people with that are considered the people with most wisdom. I guess the bigger question to ask is what do want out of your government? Me personally would be fairness and equality, others might want efficiency or peace or what they think is to be ethical. A quote from Thomas Paine's Common Sense "...but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government..." makes me think that government will never be perfect and will never make everyone happy. I could go on and on about this and i kinda of got carried away here but I only have so much space to write. I agree that philosophy is very useful and is essential to our way of life. im now a subscriber to your channel. im glad to see that there are other people out that value philosophy as i do!

[北島けいすけ]

We can make ourselves more smarter in Philosophy and Science. But we can't make food in Philosophy. Science can help people directly. That's why more and more people learn science in the university.

[matthewfrazier]

I always explain the fundamental power and thinking abilities you gain from philosophical frameworks and practice. It makes you sharp and competent. Might also mention that Philosophy majors score best on the GRE for Analytic and writing and 2nd only to physics/pure math in quantitative.

[souravsingh]

Those heavy concepts have been and will always be created in head by sitting on armchair. They all backed by deeply philosophical arguments. We cant determine usefulness and its uselessness and reject whole branch in just one argument. Its a unique study and our whole life is shaped by it.

[lateolabrax]

I don't think the question whether philosophy is useful is a legitimate one. Since things that need to be useful are tools or means to an end, by asking the said question, we are making philosophy a tool or means to an end, which is preposterous and disrespectful to knowledge itself. Philosophy is the journey to knowledge, and nothing else. Therefore, anyone who has curiosity has to do philosophy, i.e., the search of knowledge. In other words, basically all human beings are practicing philosophy without knowing it. No matter it is about science, religion, or professional boxing, if you are looking for answers, you are doing philosophy.

Moreover, things like logics, ethical questions, and better arguments are not privileges for philosophers. Everyone knows logics and everyone can use logics, otherwise we cannot communicate. You do not have to be a philosopher to ask ethical questions. And you don't have to be a philosopher to deliever clearer arguments.

However, there are still differences between people who have learned the history of philosophy and those who have not. People who studies the history of philosophy are clearer about how knowledge is derived (epistemology) and how to build a system of knowledge, which is an advantage for them to do philosophy, i.e., the search of knowledge. Therefore, the study of philosophy is useful in that sense.

[Drunk.Casperr]

Man idc what anybody says, philosophy is the shit! Gaining insight and perspective from the greatest minds throughout history is very vital for SOME of us deep thinking humans

[Dayglodaydreams]

I was a philosophy student at one time. I was a jazz performance student before then. I rather unethically strong-armed my way into the major, bypassing (to my detriment) logic and critical thinking class. I bipassed intro for philosophical classics. I changed to liberal studies (I already had my associates in liberal arts). Many lovers if poetry dislike the prominent Anglo-American, Austrian and Scandinavian methods of philosophy. This is the logic-first method. They subjectively dislike it because it is dry, lacking any beauty or poetry. It contra David Hume is anything but an indulgence. It is drudgery the flavor of cardboard. The aesthete hates Deweyan Pragmatist writing, and positivist-analytic writing. Reading Kant or Heidegger might be hyper-abstract torture exercises (Habermas might fit in with these two) but at least it isn't prose drier than the Dhammapada (you have to be trying to make your prose that dry and devoid of poetic or painterly beauty).

[GeorgWilde]

There is one simple criticism that cannot be overcome. Philosophy is kind of thinking. Thinking is costly.

[sVZ]

Thank you, you have just put into video, what I have been repeating to friends and family, over and over and over again. Now I will send them this link!

[redlemur]

Saying philosophy is useless is like saying thinking deeply is useless. Philosophy is the only subject that made me legitimately feel so much smarter. I believe one of these days, we will have a breakthrough in philosophy. It might be by me or by someone else. I'm not even a philosopher; I'm studying to be an environmental scientist but, I have been reading a book called introduction to philosophy. Yet, I believe that philosophy is ”true” knowledge. I put true in quotes because i think it is the only form of knowledge that can be proven. I still haven't found a legitimate argument to prove anything but one’s existence like Descartes said, ” I think therefore I am”. However, I do not live daily life committing atrocities by thinking that I’m the only one alive and truly, I do not think I'm the only one alive. But, I just see Descartes statement as an unmovable object in the progression of philosophy. Can someone see if my theory is correct? My theory is that Descartes statement is an immovable object but, I'm contradicting myself because I still believe we can eventually prove other people’s existence in the future. I just don't know if I want to dedicate my life to solving this problem. The reasons are that I have sleeping problems and I cannot seem to pull myself to think 100% clearly every single day and, I am also lazy. Has a philosopher already combatted Skepticism that out battles skeptics?

[ThenZya]

Great video! Looking forward to the rest of them.

[gonzogil]

You also need to construct better social relations: laws, legislation etc. You cannot do it without it. Society depends upon what social relations it will stand. Philosophical reflection is a requirement to inspect the laws that insist we pledge allegiance to. If one is to be free and commit to something that is better it is always good if we can reflect, and inspect their foundations to detect if what is presented is, in fact, the case, or, not the case. To pledge allegiance to the wrong set of ideals could have concrete catastrophic consequences.

[michaelswain]

I could make a very pragmatic argument for philosophy. Simply by looking at the amount of crackpot theories and their increased popularity having significant ramifications, not the least of which include the armed storming of the capital in 2020. This reveals how essential critical thinking, skepticism, and being able to assess the quality of the information in the modern age cannot be understated. On top of any number of real problems like global warming who if one offers any idea that doesn't make money is, in fact, making a 'non-useful point of contention. Both of these reveal real systemic problems with how ethics and what is and what isn't pragmatic is in an overly divisive and fractured political discussion which as much as I can tell relies just about as much of what could clearly be described as psychotic breaks from reality as much as it does reason.

It isn't that philosophy isn't useful it's just most of the stuff of professional philosophers is so divorced from the Traditional application of philosophy as a learning tool and the concerns of everyday people... It might as well be considered useless. For philosophers would be far more interesting in undermining Naturalism which is a masked Logical Positivism... by arguing logical foundations in STEM... Its not that one has to do with the other... But Computer Science is established as its own Domain at this point where its historical or foundational knowledge comes from has nothing to do with dispelling the notion philosophers being a passive and recessive human Agency of Aristotelian informed thinking which has been largely displaced.
To illustrate the fact consider I could go get an ethics degree in Bioethics as a masters or PhD by taking in the ethical considerations of my own Domain without necessarily even concerning myself once with the primary domain of which Ethics is a concern Philosophy. The experts of these domains can assert their own ability to manage these fields and that their specialization of subject matter in negotiation and discussion with others does not require the professional philosopher.

[szefszefow]

I disagree
We dont need philosophers to discuss between different disciplines, but this is i think the last field they might help someone.
Theory of argumentation just as well as logic are now Independent from philosophy, so we do need logicians but why bother philosophising about logic and argumentation. No one needs or wants a philosopher to tell them what to do, people have thier own opinions, and dont need anyone to guide them. Also critical thinking is something that's taken care of by logicians and psychologists.

[GeorgWilde]

Babbage's design of the analytic engine existed long before even Frege invented the modern logic ...

[mouwersor]

How about the ability of philosophy to let you question ideology and formulate a vision for your life which serves you. To reevaluate your values.

[kevinodonnell]

Science needs Philosophy to justify their Epistemological and Metaphysical claims. 💪📖

[krzyszwojciech]

Science is not "completely useless" to answer moral questions. It's just not sufficient.
Moral question asking what we should do, have to take into considerations our internal values and emotions (and possibly some hierarchies they are in), but also the knowledge about the consequences of certain actions (which may turn out contrary to the values). Science can sometimes give much better picture of large scale consequences, than a biased mind on its own.
If we could 'extract' what kind of value models people hold and how they come to be, by the means of technology, then maybe science would be sufficient, at least in principle, as the future is quite unpredictable.

[GregorysMode]

So your saying you need Philosophy to articulate, asses and then to explain a concept to others. Well every STEM subject does that, and so, so much more. What does Philosophy actually bring to the table in a practical fashion for a student apart wasted time and debt? Its about time Philosophy is seen for what it really is a hobbycraft. Interesting as hell, but pretty useless as a standalone. No way warrents a Degree level. STEMS for degrees Philosophy for relaxation afterwards.