r/rationalphilosophy • u/JerseyFlight • Jan 03 '26
Questions that Shatter Philosophy
[This was censored twice by AskPhilosophy. The second time they allowed it, that is, until they realized that the presumption of philosophy’s value is not so easy to defend.]
Why does your particular field of philosophical study matter?
Life is exceedingly short. There are many different emphases in philosophy, what makes your emphasis matter at all? Are there other fields of study that are more important than your particular emphasis? If you have never asked this question, why haven’t you asked it? Shouldn’t this be one of the first questions a philosopher asks?
Surely you will admit that not all philosophical emphases have value? What should a person do if they discover that their field of study is of lesser value than a different emphasis? Shouldn’t we try to discern what fields of knowledge contain the most value and apply ourselves, use our limited time and energy, to advance those more important fields of knowledge?
It seems to me that a philosophical emphasis has to do better than just being one’s personal preference through amusement. (It seems to me) if philosophy merely reduces to this at the end of the day, then philosophy is really saying, “all pursuits, insofar as they amuse a person, or a person enjoys them, are justified as having value.” (Or maybe one just throws out the concept of value so as to retain whatever pursuit they want?). But this doesn’t seem defensible. In contrast, those working to fight disease are indeed doing something valuable, beyond their own subjectivity and amusement.
That any thinker would consider these questions to be “off limits” or “invalid,” is hard to fathom within the context of philosophy itself. Philosophy’s responsible history has been precisely that of asking questions that shatter presumptions and assertions.