the value of philosophy

[Advocate]

"Is there such a thing as a true education that does not strive to cultivate the philosophical tools necessary to see reality in its entirety?

"Philosophy is not one of many options, but the sovereign of the lesser sciences and the servant of Truth.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Russell's take;

It is exclusively among the goods of the mind that the value of philosophy is to be found; and only those who are not indifferent to these goods can be persuaded that the study of philosophy is not a waste of time.

... if we are not to fail in our endeavour to determine the value of philosophy, we must first free our minds from the prejudices of what are wrongly called 'practical' men.
The 'practical' man, as this word is often used, is one who recognizes only material needs, who realizes that men must have food for the body, but is oblivious of the necessity of providing food for the mind.

The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty.
The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason. To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected.

Philosophy, like all other studies, aims primarily at knowledge.
The knowledge it aims at is the kind of knowledge which gives unity and system to the body of the sciences, and the kind which results from a critical examination of the grounds of our convictions, prejudices, and beliefs.

But it cannot be maintained that philosophy has had any very great measure of success in its attempts to provide definite answers to its questions.
..the value of philosophy must not depend upon any supposed body of definitely ascertainable knowledge to be acquired by those who study it.

Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy;
Philosophy is to be studied,
not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather
for the sake of the questions themselves;

because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;

but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.

[Lacewing]

Russell's take;

Philosophy is to be studied,
not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather
for the sake of the questions themselves;

because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;

Yes! The more broadly we consider, obviously the broader the possibilities we have access to. Whereas, if we lock ourselves down to a specific model, inflexible due to our ego, agenda, or resolve, we are limited to that (which is more a self-serving fragment of possibility than of any broader truth). I think the best and truest kind of philosophy is that which thoughtfully questions continually -- so as not to be a servant of smaller and limited ideas/agendas.

[Advocate]

[quote=Lacewing post_id=486355 time=1609008926 user_id=11228]
[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=486198 time=1608880705 user_id=7896]
Russell's take;
[quote=Bertrand Russell"]
Philosophy [b]is to be studied[/b],
not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather
[b]for the sake of the questions themselves[/b];

because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;
[/quote][/quote]
Yes! The more broadly we consider, obviously the broader the possibilities we have access to. Whereas, if we lock ourselves down to a specific model, inflexible due to our ego, agenda, or resolve, we are limited to [u][i]that[/i][/u] (which is more a self-serving fragment of possibility than of any broader truth). I think the best and truest kind of philosophy is that which thoughtfully questions continually -- so as not to be a servant of smaller and limited ideas/agendas.
[/quote]

That's the cult of open-mindedness. The purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is actionable certainty, and that means finding answers you can depend upon Without continuously questioning them. Intellectual maturity is the process of Closing your mind!

We should continuously validate our priors when new information is presented which passes some evidence filter, and we should always be on the lookout for new information, regardless of what it portends, but we should Not exhaustively suspect ourselves of bias or everyone else of wisdom.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That's the cult of open-mindedness. The purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is actionable certainty, and that means finding answers you can depend upon Without continuously questioning them. Intellectual maturity is the process of Closing your mind!

So your stance is a cult of closed-mindedness.

Russell's view is that philosophers must keep questioning to prevent the dogmatic claims of certainty of theists and those in la la land.

We should continuously validate our priors when new information is presented which passes some evidence filter, and we should always be on the lookout for new information, regardless of what it portends, but we should Not exhaustively suspect ourselves of bias or everyone else of wisdom.

If your stance is closed-mindedness how are you getting your new information [data and hypothesis] for validation?

Note the OP stated philosophy aimed for knowledge which is justified true beliefs, and from there keep questioning. This is what science has been doing all this while without expecting any final answers, else that would be the death of science.

• Philosophy, like all other studies, aims primarily at knowledge.
  The knowledge it aims at is the kind of knowledge which gives unity and system to the body of the sciences, and the kind which results from a critical examination of the grounds of our convictions, prejudices, and beliefs.

[Advocate]

[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=486379 time=1609033219 user_id=7896]
[quote=Advocate post_id=486359 time=1609010534 user_id=15238]
That's the cult of open-mindedness. The purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is actionable certainty, and that means finding answers you can depend upon Without continuously questioning them. Intellectual maturity is the process of Closing your mind![/quote]
So your stance is a cult of closed-mindedness.

Russell's view is that philosophers must keep questioning to prevent the dogmatic claims of certainty of theists and those in la la land.

[quote]We should continuously validate our priors when new information is presented which passes some evidence filter, and we should always be on the lookout for new information, regardless of what it portends, but we should Not exhaustively suspect ourselves of bias or everyone else of wisdom.
[/quote]
If your stance is closed-mindedness how are you getting your new information [data and hypothesis] for validation?

Note the OP stated philosophy aimed for knowledge which is justified true beliefs, and from there keep questioning. This is what science has been doing all this while without expecting any final answers, else that would be the death of science.

[list][color=#0000FF]Philosophy, like all other studies, aims primarily at knowledge.
The knowledge it aims at is the kind of knowledge which gives unity and system to the body of the sciences, and the kind which results from a critical examination of the grounds of our convictions, prejudices, and beliefs[/color].[/list]
[/quote]

Knowledge cannot be justified true belief because the truth of the belief is what knowledge is a pointer toward. Start with a self-including definition and you're guaranteed to go nowhere.

Science is rigor, nothing more, nothing less. To the extent it is possible to study something rigorously, it's a scientific study. This does not, notably, apply to rigorously applying your imagination to fill in gaps, such as in theology or most versions of quantum blah blah.

My stance is not to be close-minded per-se; it's a process. To the extent i've found the Truth in a sufficiently verifiable sense, i must stop searching out alternatives. It's important to note that if you've found the truth, there's no way to avoid confirmation bias because all true ideas will correspond to your understanding. The truth only loses in compromise. I was clear to retain a vetting requirement in my formula.

The knowledge you speak of as philosophy's aim, i would call answers (frameworks of understanding) as opposed to solutions (bespoke answer plans). That's the stuff that gives unity and system, etc. Critical examination of our potential failures is only necessary to the point we cannot adequately explain the rationale for our beliefs. You're not right unless you know Why you're right, but if you know why, then it takes a pointed refutation beyond the typical ones you'll ordinarily encounter to be worth examining for potential errors in your own understanding.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Knowledge cannot be justified true belief because the truth of the belief is what knowledge is a pointer toward. Start with a self-including definition and you're guaranteed to go nowhere.

There is no certainty nor absolutely-absoluteness.

Knowledge can be justified true belief as long as it is qualified, e.g. Gettier aside and users to be well informed of its limitations.

Scientific knowledge in that sense is Justified True Beliefs as justified within the scientific framework and system.
Note scientific knowledge in another sense is at best polished-conjectures.

From a philosophical perspective, scientific knowledge with its uncertainty, assumptions and limitations is open for continual questioning re Russell's value of philosophy.

[Advocate]

[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=486407 time=1609040524 user_id=7896]
[quote=Advocate post_id=486393 time=1609036816 user_id=15238]
Knowledge cannot be justified true belief because the truth of the belief is what knowledge is a pointer toward. Start with a self-including definition and you're guaranteed to go nowhere.
[/quote]
There is no certainty nor absolutely-absoluteness.

Knowledge can be justified true belief as long as it is qualified, e.g. Gettier aside and users to be well informed of its limitations.

Scientific knowledge in that sense is Justified True Beliefs as justified within the scientific framework and system.
Note scientific knowledge in another sense is at best polished-conjectures.

From a philosophical perspective, scientific knowledge with its uncertainty, assumptions and limitations is open for continual questioning re Russell's value of philosophy.
[/quote]

Knowledge cannot be justified true belief in any sense, because the apparency of truth is what knowledge is of. The limitation is that if you use JTB, you can never know whether something is knowledge until some indefinite date in the future when some unforeseen absolute certainty of what Truth is validates the claim. That simply will not work.

[Eodnhoj7]

Knowledge cannot be justified true belief because the truth of the belief is what knowledge is a pointer toward. Start with a self-including definition and you're guaranteed to go nowhere.

There is no certainty nor absolutely-absoluteness.

Knowledge can be justified true belief as long as it is qualified, e.g. Gettier aside and users to be well informed of its limitations.

Scientific knowledge in that sense is Justified True Beliefs as justified within the scientific framework and system.
Note scientific knowledge in another sense is at best polished-conjectures.

From a philosophical perspective, scientific knowledge with its uncertainty, assumptions and limitations is open for continual questioning re Russell's value of philosophy.

"There is no certainty nor absolutely-absoluteness."

This is an absolute statement of reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Knowledge cannot be justified true belief because the truth of the belief is what knowledge is a pointer toward. Start with a self-including definition and you're guaranteed to go nowhere.

There is no certainty nor absolutely-absoluteness.

Knowledge can be justified true belief as long as it is qualified, e.g. Gettier aside and users to be well informed of its limitations.

Scientific knowledge in that sense is Justified True Beliefs as justified within the scientific framework and system.
Note scientific knowledge in another sense is at best polished-conjectures.

From a philosophical perspective, scientific knowledge with its uncertainty, assumptions and limitations is open for continual questioning re Russell's value of philosophy.

"There is no certainty nor absolutely-absoluteness."

This is an absolute statement of reality.

No, that is a relative statement of reality.
It is relative to humans' critical thinking.

[Eodnhoj7]

There is no certainty nor absolutely-absoluteness.

Knowledge can be justified true belief as long as it is qualified, e.g. Gettier aside and users to be well informed of its limitations.

Scientific knowledge in that sense is Justified True Beliefs as justified within the scientific framework and system.
Note scientific knowledge in another sense is at best polished-conjectures.

From a philosophical perspective, scientific knowledge with its uncertainty, assumptions and limitations is open for continual questioning re Russell's value of philosophy.

"There is no certainty nor absolutely-absoluteness."

This is an absolute statement of reality.

No, that is a relative statement of reality.
It is relative to humans' critical thinking.

False, this principle determines human critical thinking thus subjecting human rational to principles which exist higher than it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"There is no certainty nor absolutely-absoluteness."

This is an absolute statement of reality.

No, that is a relative statement of reality.
It is relative to humans' critical thinking.

False, this principle determines human critical thinking thus subjecting human rational to principles which exist higher than it.

Leaping into la la land!

[Eodnhoj7]

No, that is a relative statement of reality.
It is relative to humans' critical thinking.

False, this principle determines human critical thinking thus subjecting human rational to principles which exist higher than it.

Leaping into la la land!

We are already in la la land if all is a hallucination made by the mind according to you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

False, this principle determines human critical thinking thus subjecting human rational to principles which exist higher than it.

Leaping into la la land!

We are already in la la land if all is a hallucination made by the mind according to you.

Nope you are leaping into la la land a sub-hallucination within the main-hallucination.

[Eodnhoj7]

Leaping into la la land!

We are already in la la land if all is a hallucination made by the mind according to you.

Nope you are leaping into la la land a sub-hallucination within the main-hallucination.

But all is a hallucination according to you.