Philosophy gives you the ability to ponder. If you’re pompous about it, then yeah your dinner party with be pissed off. There’s nothing wrong with being in a state of wonderment. Does philosophy=intelligent? Probably to an extent, but your average philosopher probably isn’t a genius by any means.
I have to half and half agree with this, I'm taking Philosophy and boy let me tell you there are some stuck up people in there but if you ignore them and focus on the content it can be interesting. Most of the time it's just theories and then more theories that contradict those theories etc. It doesn't make you intelligent that's for sure, maybe more open-minded though (Personally I find it pretty boring but I have a very fact driven brain so that might be why)
Intelligence is just how fast you can recall information, I think a better word to use rather than smart or stupid is creative. Like the beginnings of any idea, you have to be open and creative to think/theorise something new. I don't believe intelligence is something we should use to judge people, opportunities like education aren't given to everyone so personally I feel it would be unfair to use that as a basis for creating worthwhile ideas.
I apologize, I’m very tired and my words are not coming out correctly, and I may be a little cranky. So just disregard what I said. You’re right. I retract my statement. I am a little embarrassed about my last statement in my response. It’s now deleted, as it served no purpose beyond false praise or belittlement.
“Intelligence” in a non precise linguistic sense aka: “smarts” are a hard thing to measure or even classify. Philosophy is likewise a bit broad- but in a general sense I like to think of philosophy as a combination of ones ability to observe and infer coupled with the ability to reconcile information. For example: some degree of intelligence and observation are required to determine that their work offers the greatest financial benefit to those they serve under. That self employment offers greater potential to maximize the self return of ones labor. Self employment carries risks and costs not associated with corporate employment though- and more over, due to the nature of modern commerce eventually the money spent on basic functions of running their business end up feeding corporate wealth anyway- and thus the actual increase in money kept proportional to labor, or even a decrease, is debatable and fluid.
Looking at these simple scenarios we can see 3 primary views: it is better to remain in l someone else’s employ, it is better to be self employed, you are screwed no matter what you do. We have now crossed into philosophy. In order to reconcile the information we have acquired we have to examine several philosophical points- security of one sort versus another, risk and reward, wether it is better to increase self monetary benefit but create greater benefit for another from your labor, or better to potentially decrease monetary benefit while allowing another to profit from you less, the morality and issues of corporate and other wealth structures, and so on. Statistically speaking you are more likely to achieve moderate and steady prosperity through being employed by others, but unless you are in certain fields you are less likely to achieve uncommon prosperity for your field by being employed by another.
Extreme reward most often demands greater risk. Landing on the moon, even with maximum mitigation to risk would still carry a large risk in 2019 let alone in 1969 using available technology and knowledge. So even in as near as a “pure science” context as we can get with something like a massive public space program- philosophy is the force that takes what we know and what we do not know/cannot yet know, and reconciles them.
Philosophy is based primarily in experience and observation. It is unlike science which also incorporates those things in that unlike science; it can be “right” or “wrong” but not universally. Because philosophy on an individual level is not subject (most often by its abstract nature it cannot be) to control and review- it is subjective. Two people with radically conflicting philosophies can both self report or have reported by third party observers that their philosophy has served them well through life. This can be true- because they both lead different lives, but it can also be objectively false. A bias that is created through that philosophy can lead a person to perceive events in a way that fits that philosophy.
Likewise there is the unknown- having no way to know how each event in life and each following event would go if they had behaved differently and applied another philosophy, the result is up to them to decide. A person who believes you never take “handouts” might avoid certain troubles in life, but they also may have found themselves in better circumstances and or with better relationships etc. Say they were offered a “pity job” they did not take. 16 months later it is revealed that there were sub par safety standards and a worker was badly injured. This person may use this to confirm their belief they are right.
However- there is no guarantee they would have been the injured worker. What’s more- let’s say each of those workers received life transforming cash payouts, many may get book deals etc. some may have formed social networks. Say one of those workers decided based on that they would start their own company that cares for workers. That company becomes a major player and other workers from the “bad company” are the first hires. 10-20 years later they all have stocks and the like worth many millions. Life is unpredictable.
Because life is unpredictable but making the “optimal” decision for any goal requires planning based in part on the unknown- philosophy serves as a guide on how to act in the face of the unknown or new. It informs our view of things. It shapes our goals and our reasons for those goals and thus our methods to reach them. It provides a reference to interpreting and understanding the behavior of others and ourselves.
There are few things being “smarter” doesn’t help- but really, philosophy as an individual process- one person alone just chasing thoughts- regardless of how “smart” one is- is a method of understanding the world as best as we are capable, and a corner stone of self awareness so that our actions aren’t just dictated to us or impulse, but have a purpose of some sort. An “idiot” isn’t best served necessarily by a “genius” philosophy because a philosophy that works for one person is one they have to understand to use. But the way an “idiot” can understand a “genius” philosophy is by building up to it through constantly expanding and exploring their own philosophy and beliefs and weighting those.
That’s where formal and informal study of philosophy comes into play. Exposing us to ideas we may not have had on our own, and then we can explore those ideas, compare our own, incorporate the parts we feel work or can be reconciled, and just as we build muscle strength trying to lift weights that are a little heavier than we can easily carry, or run just a little further- by pondering these ideas we build our minds so that they can digest a little more and more over time.
Nah, sometimes my attitude can be shitty. I don’t want to be one if those people that are always talking down to others. I get caught up in my pride, and I’m working on letting that go. So no one should be afraid to call me out for being unnecessarily judgmental.
Comments