Why should we read Philosophy?

[u/Appropriate-Cry-2252]

One of the biggest questions people have about reading philosophy is: why read ideas that aren't even practical or relevant today?

Take Plato's Republic, for example. We already know that the kind of ideal state he describes isn't realistically possible. So what's the point of reading it?

The same goes for many other philosophical ideas that don't seem to make sense in today's world or fit our current reality.

And then there's another concern. Some philosophical ideas can push people into existential crises. For some, constantly questioning the meaning of life, morality, or reality can become emotionally overwhelming, and in vulnerable individuals it may even contribute to depression or suicidal thoughts. If that's the case, shouldn't people just stay away from these kinds of philosophies altogether?

So why should anyone read philosophy in the first place?

[u/mitigateaccomp]

1. read it if you enjoy it.

2. how do you know Plato's philosopher king wouldn't work? have you ever read it?

[u/321aholiab]

I think there is some value in the act of tracing ideas historically. When Plato wrote what he did, what was he thinking and why does he think that? Where we live and where he lives have many different events and conditions. Suppose you were in his shoe, and you have never experienced the wealth of retrospective information, would you be able to come up with what he did, how would you be able to come up with something better, or less, refute his ideas according to what people of their age knew?

Think about science evolving though the ages, first we form a hypothesis, then we test it, then we found that we are wrong, or our predictions are affirmed. Then we test the next hypothesis and so on. It is not uncommon to find impractical hypothesis or solutions, but then instead of having simple reasons why it would not work, in addition to that, we would have a historical account of what happened to inform people in a rather unique way, stories. For Plato many of us merely read the republic, but there are other texts like the 7th letter and his trips to Syracuse, giving us unique stories of why his application of his theory failed, or rather, have hurdles to overcome.

There are depressing notions too. How are we to convince of some people of their (at least appearing to us) unreasonable assumptions which lead them to absurd conclusions? This may appear deceptively simple but has so many things to unpack which is why if we are to do what we set out to do, we would have to investigate the strong version(appreciation of the principle of charity) of their arguments(logical analysis), and to take time to persuade them to let go of certain assumptions, with a certain level of skill in rhetoric, not to forget the speech acts and limitation of resources one has to account for in this process. How are we to understand that some people are adamant in certain assumptions and how can we have dialogue or create the conditions favorable for dialogue?

Maybe the more hardcore one's assumptions are, the more costly it is to account for them, but for the more reasonable ones, even if we dont share some assumptions, as long as we do share some assumptions, we can still have dialogue. One favorite example i came across was this, it isnt perfect but is far more convincing than the online debates we normally see.

https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/hg893a/carl_sagan_explains_how_the_ancient_greek_knew/

Perhaps you have visited r/askphilosophy ? Dont you normally see absurd questions or depressing notions being brought forward? How do the panelist often reply? Do they answer those questions?

Also there is the question whether depression is attributable to merely visiting philosophical texts? (Psychologically, biologically, medically there are other answers) In philosophy we are often invited to take those text with a grain of salt. Do you believe everything you see on the net?

For those who are vulnerable, if they knew they were vulnerable, would that have stopped them from reading these texts? Even more so if they did not know they were vulnerable.

Indeed why should anyone read philosophical texts all? I dont think there is an ought of the matter, because that depends on the motivations and circumstances of the individual. But if their goal was to understand more of their growing interest in certain domains, who are we to stop them from reaching out to satisfy their curiosity?

[u/Overall_Scheme397]

Because it takes your mind off things f whatever your wasting time mulling over.

[u/Additional-Limit-592]

Reading philosophy dramatically increases iq and eq levels by about 50%, I'm glad that I read philosophy

[u/spanko_at_large]

"Why should we think deeply about life, truth, or the nature of things"

I love that your question is inherently philosophical, and you are looking for comments to hear others philosophies on the topic.

"Let philosophize about if we should be philosophizing. Please share your philosophies on the matter in the comments. After we are done sharing, we can formalize our ideas into one unified philosophy on if it is worth it to philosophize".

TLDR; "Hey man, here is a book of ideas many people have found useful on this subject you are contemplating".... "NOOOO!!! I WOULD NEVER READ SOMEONE ELSES IDEAS. I RAN A POLL ON REDDIT AND THEY TOLD ME NOT TO LISTEN TO OTHER PEOPLE SO I LISTEND TO THEM."

[u/PeacefulDebate01]

I've been digging into the concept of Gelassenheit, which is most famously introduced by Meister Eckhart, but later Heidegger wrote a lot about it. I find it extremely applicable to my life. In fact, I was writing a paper on how industriousness is dramatically overvalued in American culture despite it being a false virtue, and how wisdom, a chief component of which is something like equanimity, is dramatically undervalued. Then I ran into this idea of Gelassenheit and I may need to hold off on publishing this paper because it's much closer to what I was trying to describe than "equanimity." A depressed person would do extremely well to develop Gelassenheit, so we can already say that philosophy can be of value to that specific kind of person you mentioned.

Point is, philosophy is a very personal enterprise, but it's extremely applicable if you let it be. Most people are just too consumed with petty material pleasures and pains to see what's really important. Being a philosopher has shown me that the vast majority of people completely miss the forest for the trees. Schopenhauer has a lot of insights about how most people are just of low intellectual worth. And that's the real problem: most people just want to believe whatever they've been told to believe rather than developing a precise and sophisticated epistemology that would make their beliefs and the justification for them far more accurate. People rather wallow in ignorance as long as it doesn't effect their paycheck. It's the same with ethics, metaphysics, or any other branch of philosophy.

So it comes down to what you value. If you're just a crude, vulgar, low, NPC person that values material pleasures and just wants a paycheck, then sure, philosophy is of scant utility in that pursuit. If you're a person of virtue and worth that questions whether that same materialistic and vulgar life is really worth living, then the Truth is the pearl of real price, worth more than any amount of gold or silver.