>>13211758I've read philosophy, I've spoken with philosophers, etc. and I still have yet to find an answer as to what philosophy really is, what it is useful for and how to prioritize philosophy over non-philosophy when living, working, etc. Take for example Einstein, he argued that you can do fine without philosophy but that during that time he was forced to pursue philosophy (Mach, Kant, Hume, etc.) in order to rethink the foundations of physics, and in doing so he thought about using Riemannian geometry as a foundation, instead of classical Euclidean space. But he was an opportunist, in the sense that he didn't really use philosophy, he was using philosophy as a tool to explain various phenomena. Sometimes he was using ideas from platonism, sometimes he was a nominalist, etc.
But I've yet to find a philosopher that can answer these questions. The most I've found is that:
>everything is philosophysure, but people seem to be doing just fine without having to read ethical phil. books, etc. and physicists can think just fine without reading about monism, atomism, etc. You can deal with those tiny philosophical questions from outside of philosophy, kind of like how I can use a phone without knowing how it works.
>some parts of philosophy are useful and pragmatic: ethics (jurisprudence, AI ethics, etc.), logic (turing's thesis was partly philosophical), stoicism, etc.sure, but if so, then you can pick a few things from philosophy and carry on with your life, because it seems that we can live on even with partial philosophical knowledge, all the time.
>philosophy is useless and the discussions are never-ending but it's importantthis is just wankery
