Philosophy is a Waste of Time

Kevin Steves

Pittston Education Chronicle

May 2014

Philosophy is a waste of time. Worse then that, the study of philosophy, when taken seriously, impedes scientific progress, undermines moral conviction and erodes the very sense of patriotism and loyalty necessary for a thriving democratic republic such as ours.

There was a time, when philosophy was so wedded to common sense, religious morality and civic duty that it acted as a corrective to fanatical excesses and thoughtless irrational commitments. Here the therapeutic value of philosophy could be seen in that it encouraged thoughtful, careful dialogue with an eye to solving real practical problems facing the community and advancing collective human wisdom. The goal of philosophical speculation was gaining a deeper understanding of the world and our place in it, not mere fancy or system building. Nor was it the sowing of seeds of doubt and distrust for no other reason the self-aggrandizement. The clever were not confused with the wise and the tree was known by its fruit.

Such is not the case today. In our present academic philosophical climate any wild speculative nonsense is given “serious” consideration regardless of how absurd the position, how impractical the consequences, how immoral the implications. Further these pseudo-inquires are not seen as skeptical challenges to our present conception of the truth, but rather challenges to our ever being able to delineate anything AS the truth.

Here is my point in essence. First, not unlike the present state of the art world (where modern works serve, not merely to expand our notion of “what is art” but rather to destroy any fixed notion of “art”) so too modern philosophy seeks not so much to guide us to ever more adequate understanding of the world and our place in it nor even to the successful resolution of our social (ethical, political, epistemological, etc.) problems. Rather philosophy seems only so seek to confuse and bewilder and frustrate any and all such attempts. “Truth” in any objective sense has been relegated to a quaint antique (or perhaps a devious political manipulation) in much the same way that objectivity in beauty or aesthetic merit is seen as the product of nefarious social construction. Philosophical questioning is no longer seen to serve any human interest other than to build a personal reputation as a “scholar” and fill a tenure folder. No doubt, some attack and deride all sources of truth and value because they genuinely believe all to be equally illegitimate, (They seem oblivious to the internal inconsistency of that position.) but others have no “greater good” in mind than advancing their own careers. As a result, when taken seriously, (and I believe that is happening with less and less frequency) academic philosophy serves only to loosen our collective grasp on inquiry (as Susan Hacke has put it) and the very “wisdom” it is purported to seek.

We are made to doubt not the truth of our particular theories, but our capacity to know what “truth” means. We are made to doubt not the propriety of our current moral convictions, but the possibility of moral reasoning. We are made to doubt not the particular conceptions of beauty and art which currently enjoy popular appeal, but to believe that “beauty” and “ugliness” name only private sensations while at the same time that merely private sensations cannot be named.

The social consequences should be clear to even a causal observer: Moral Subjectivism and Nihilism. (After all, the wise philosophers have taught us that there are no objective moral truths.) Apathy in the face of moral atrocities (After all the wise philosophers have taught us that no morality is superior to any other and that ultimately, all struggle, even against injustice, is meaningless.). Debauchery celebrated as “art.” (Again, we can thank the philosophers for their wise counsel, chiding artists who strive for beauty and vaulting those who wallow in the profane, the vile, the nauseating.) Patriotism and civic service is decried as childish romanticism or something darker, perhaps merely a vehicle to personal power and domination.

Curiously, science alone seems to have taken the wisest course and chosen, largely, to ignore philosophy and its specious criticisms of scientific process and discovery. See for instance Neil deGrasse Tyson recent remarks. (Transcipt below.) Or a recent post by Bill Nye: “Hey Bill Nye, 'Does Science Have All the Answers or Should We Do Philosophy Too?'” #TuesdaysWithBill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROe28Ma_tYM

Perhaps because of science’s indissolveable link to industry and the practical, or perhaps simply because of the natural clear-thinking good sense of those attracted to science, scientists are content to smile politely as philosophers blather on about “the impossibility of objective truth,” “the unjustified nature of induction,” “their skeptical worries about there even being an objective physical world.” Scientists then go right about their business, discovering truths, using inductive reasoning to find cures for diseases, detailing the objective physical world. Indeed, we have science’s renunciation of philosophical critique and skepticism, far more then science’s serious consideration of these, to thank for our past present and future scientific progress. Just how seriously would any of us want our surgeon, drug manufacturer or even our mechanic to take “philosophical speculation?”

And yet, what is so plainly seen in our most immediate modes of existence, is missed or forgotten as we ascend to higher and higher levels of abstraction where our awareness of the havoc philosophy wreaks is less acute. Note that even the most stalwart philosophy professor teaching moral nihilism every semester will, nevertheless, demand justice should she be denied tenure on the basis of her gender. And rightly so, for even she does not sincerely subscribe to the abstract moral teachings of her own “philosophy,” at least not when her paycheck is on the line.

This brings me to my second point. Not only does philosophy undermine morality, and perhaps more importantly inquiry itself, by the content of many philosophical theories, but it undermines our commitment to reason by the very fact that is constructs so many “reasonable” arguments for such ridiculous positions. The practice of contemporary philosophy suggests not merely that “there are two sides to every issue,” but that there are two equally good sides to every issue. The underlying assumption among many philosophers is that any position can be given rational justification by a creative mind (and that the degree of strength of that rational justification is proportional to the creative powers of its defenders). Further they believe that any position which can summon a rational justification is thereby “rational.” The conjunction of these two claims entails that any idea, no matter how immoral, how impractical, how bizarre a theory it may be, it is as rational as any other and that Reason knows nothing of Truth, that is, that there is no institutional tie between a theory being reasonable and a theory being true/preferred. This is no mere epistemological theory, but rather a description of the state of contemporary philosophy.

Sensible people everywhere acknowledge that not every position with a rational justification IS rational. Nor is every position lacking rational justification necessarily irrational. A rational position is simply what rational people believe. Early on, even philosophers understood this. This accounts for the good work philosophy could then accomplish. We find today that people use philosophy not as a means to make their rational commitments clear and explicit, but rather for sophistry, to rationalize their prejudices, to avoid responsibility, to condemn what they find annoying, burdensome or inconvenient. But unlike the sophists of old who were men unwilling to say shameful things merely for sake of winning an argument (or publishing a book) our modern-day sophists have no scruples about denying the possibility of knowledge and then getting on an airplane or taking their heart medication. Socrates would find philosophy in today’s environment so unmoored from truth or “what reasonable people believe” that is has ceased to be “the pursuit of wisdom” (Philo- Sophia) but rather the intellectual equivalent of our adversarial justice system; in both truth, justice and decency are sacrificed for expedient one-upmanship. However, while it may be argued that our justice system is a flawed but necessary evil, no such defense of Philosophy is plausible.

Perhaps then there is a value to the study of philosophy as a species of history or literary competency. But as a species of serious inquiry, we would do well, in the interest of truth, morality and social progress to follow the example of science; smile politely at their ingenious mental acrobatics and then go about our business.

On the Nerdist podcast

http://www.nerdist.com/2014/03/nerdist-podcast-neil-degrasse-tyson-returns-again/

(The discussion to which I refer begins about 20 minutes in.)

Tyson: I agree.

Interviewer: At a certain point it's just futile.

Tyson: Yeah, yeah, exactly, exactly. My concern here is that the philosophers believe they are actually asking deep questions about nature. And to the scientist it's, "What are you doing? Why are you concerning yourself with the meaning of meaning?"

Another interviewer: I think a healthy balance of both is good.

Tyson: Well, I'm still worried even about a healthy balance. Yeah, if you are distracted by your questions so that you can't move forward, you are not being a productive contributor to our understanding of the natural world. And so the scientist knows when the question "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" is a pointless delay in our progress.

[Insert predictable joke by one interviewer, imitating the clapping of one hand.]

Tyson: How do you define "clapping"? All of a sudden it devolves into a discussion of the definition of words. And I'd rather keep the conversation about ideas. And when you do that, don't derail yourself on questions that you think are important because philosophy class tells you this. The scientist says, "Look, I got all this world of unknown out there. I'm moving on. I'm leaving you behind. You can't even cross the street because you are distracted by what you are sure are deep questions you've asked yourself. I don't have the time for that."

[Note to the reader: I, like Neil, live and work in Manhattan, and I can assure you that I am quite adept at crossing the perilous streets of the metropolis.]

Interviewer: I also felt that it was a fat load of crap, as one could define what "crap" is and the essential qualities that make up crap: how you grade a philosophy paper? [5] [This interviewer is not one to put too fine a point on things, apparently.]

Tyson: [Laughs.] Of course, I think we all agree you turned out OK.

Interviewer: Philosophy was a good major for comedy, I think, because it does get you to ask a lot of ridiculous questions about things.

Tyson: No, you need people to laugh at your ridiculous questions.

Interviewer: It's a bottomless pit. It just becomes nihilism.

Tyson: Nihilism is a kind of philosophy.