Budding philosopher's dilemma

[Lost2ize]

So applying Ockham's razor here, this is the long and short of it.

I want to be a philosopher. I love philosophy and feel without a doubt I am destined to be the father of post-modern western thought. Until then however I do have one dilemma. Why should people be interested in philosophy? Or, perhaps better, how do I defend philosophy from the ones who would ask, "where is the practical application"?

For example, a hand grenade of philosophical discussion would be, "If a tree falls...." and rightly so. But the more intriguing question that might follow is, "Well, why does it matter or who cares?".

All I am looking for really is another addition to my toolbox. If anyone knows a good response to give to someone who questions the usefulness of philosophy please help.

[jeeprs]

Actually in this case, I would rather hear your answer than your question. Then I might have some suggestions.

[R.Danneskjöld]

There are lots of examples of the pratical application of Philosophy, one such example would be a lot of the work being done in the field of Cognitive science, a prime example would be some of the work done by Philosophers such as Dennett & Searle which certainly does have significant pratical implications. The same effect of Philosophy's influence over another subject would be some of the influence that Philosophy has over the field Psychology through the Philosophy of Psychology, dealing with the methods of Psychology & the conceptual confusions within the field of Psychology.

Also with some of the developments being made in Science there has been a significant in the growth of Bio-ethics, with some Philosophers being found ethics committees in the UK NHS. You will also find that Philosophy helps with other skills that are important for many jobs and much in demand, for example logic & written communication.

[jgweed]

I think the best answer to those who argue that philosophy has no "cash-value" immediately gained by society, and has no world-shaping force (as does for example, technology) is that it is by no means impotent or useless in what it can become for the individual. In this respect, philosophy is perhaps the greatest means for man to find his way to freedom and inner independence. And when this independence is gained, THEN the individual becomes himself a force in the world.

[Lost2ize]

My typical response to the philosophical nay-sayers is somewhat like jgweeds. I argue that philosophy is just as much a search for truth and reason as it is a quest for wisdom. And, the world is full enough of people who "do" without reason or knowledge of truth.

It is usually just the ones who would say that philosophy doesn't make a difference to the "average joe". These are usually are political scientist or civil engineers and the like.

I liken philosophy to what the scarecrow said to Dorothy when she asked how he could talk if he didn't have a brain.
"I don't know... but then again, there are a lot of people with no brains who do an awful lot of talking!"

[Didymos Thomas]

You're a little late if you want to be the father of post-modern philosophy. Post-modernism has been around since, roughly, the 1950's in the US.

Regarding you dilemma, in trying to explain and defend the value of philosophy, why not start with the classic?

the value of philosophy by Bertrand Russell

[richrf]

I have studied Eastern philosophy extensively, and it has enormous practical value for me in the way I handle every day affairs in my life (dealing with life is not as easy as one might think), as well as maintaining my physical and mental health. Eastern philosophy is built around practical everyday advice for people based upon a perspective of the way the universe works. I find it enormously useful day by day - all through the day.

Rich

[Theages]

All non-philosophers make lots of philosophical commitments without realizing it. If you can reveal those commitments to them, they'll begin to grasp what you're doing.

[prothero]

We are what we think.
Our actions reflect our beliefs.

[Moe M.E.]

If we look at philosophy historically, it can be seen as a substitute for the scientific method in the absence of science. Today, it seems like just about anything can be explained though the sciences, however those that can't- such as consciousness,morality, the existence of a God or other supernatural entities, are left to be argued using a logic-based philosophic method. Let us not forget the origin of the PhD. Not only is philosophy still relevant today, it's absolutely necessary to try and extend our understanding of the world in ways that today's technology has not yet been able to. One example is that of the more elaborate string theory (m theory, superstring theory ect). Since we lack the tools to test hypothesis, it's becoming more of an open discussion among theorists, based off mathematical and experimental premises.