| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ASK A QUESTION RECENT RESPONSES CONCEPT CLOUD
|
Do philosophers really think that the problems they discuss are important in themselves, or does thinking about the problems merely serve as practice in analytical thinking? How does philosophy differ from puzzle solving (besides the fact that puzzles actually tend to get solved)? October 4, 2005
I think most philosophers think the problems are important. But there are lots of different views about why they are. One possible view is that worrying about such problems helps us to get clear about certain things we need to be clear about if we're to do science. See my response to a different question for elaboration: 30.
As Richard states, there is considerable disagreement among philosophers about which philosophical questions are significant, and why. There is also considerable truth in your suggestion that studying the methods and texts of philosophy is itself a valuable way to develop one's analytical reading, writing, thinking, and communication skills. So, as a teacher of philosophy I hope that my students will both gain useful insight by studying diverse philosophical questions and approaches and will also gain useful analytical skills. This is an extremely powerful combination, and this power is one reason why philosophy students tend to do so well in the professional job market and also tend to advance quickly within their chosen professions. About puzzle solving: the difference that you touch on, that philosophical puzzles are rarely solved in definitive way that gain professional consensus, is the central one. I take this to mean that investigating a philosophical question is very different from solving a puzzle (and I'm very glad for this difference -- see more here: 155).
|
RELATED SITES
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||