Actual philosophers are not as bad at the false answers thing as some people who rise to public attention, instead they serve the useful purpose of making people realize their preconceived notions about their own thoughts and their relationship to reality are not as sound as they may have thought, by virtue of the many different ways others have self-consistently answered the same questions.
I think you'll need some sense of metaphysics and epistemology and maybe even ethics to function, most people have one (they know what they think the word "reality," means, they can distinguish between thoughts and observations, they wouldn't kill unless they were seriously threatened) but when that is extended into a "let me tell you how the world works" thing it becomes philosophy done bad, which can only be resisted by knowing philosophy done right (the impassive if frustrating collection of a lot of possible solutions). It is a universal human trait to want to answer these questions, even the so-called "rationalists" have a web page with a list of doctrines. The only way to do it wrong is to come up with one answer and think that it is the answer because it's the only answer you know and that is what learning philosophy is for.
There’s still a lot of value in philosophy when we use it to think about how we structure and rationalize the world.
Even if science gives us ever better models of the underlying reality of the universe, there’s still the understanding of how we conceptualize that reality and what it means to us. Specifically in ways that don’t require religion or supernatural beings, nor in purely psychological means of perception or physiology.
I think of it as the study of the emergent properties of complex information processing. It can do things like help us talk about the minds of others, for example future AI, potential extraterrestrial intelligences, or even other terrestrial intelligences (dolphins, octopus, etc)
How do you believe the results you are getting? What makes such a belief justified?
What is the nature of consciousness?
What are things beautiful? What makes something ascetically pleasing.
Why any of this exists at all?
What is the purpose of this existence?
Is something ethical? Science can provide answer about consequences of an action but cannot determine if said action is moral or ethical.
… science is not a book of facts. It is merely a process for testing a hypothesis. It is not a replacement for philosophy, it is underpinned by philosophy.
A scientist follows the scientific method, i.e. they advance testable hypotheses and compare their predictions with the data. A philosopher writes deep-sounding but ultimately meaningless drivel like this:
It's not lost on me that Tractatus was warmly received by philosophers, but Investigations got a frostier reception from the same group. I especially enjoyed Russell's snippy quote. Ol Ludwig struck a nerve, did he, Bert?
On your last question ethics in particular is rather interesting. I think it's the field where the decline of philosophy is most obvious.
Ethics is supposed to answer real-life questions, like "How do I live a moral life?".
Yet philosophical movements, that actually tired to answer such questions, like the stoics and the epicureans are long gone. When you read on the actual writings of contemporary philosophers you'd see impossible moral standards - "It takes 5 dollars to save a starving African child, a night out with friends is the equivalent to abandoning a bus of drowning children to their deaths"[1]
It's impossible to live by such philosophy, except for those that think of themselves as some sort of creature of pure evil who cares nothing of right and wrong.
Because philosophy is useless as a guidance to life, right and wrong are now decided by the encyclical, the fatwa and the resolutions at the party congress, depending on your religion.
Ohh, it's not just the rich world that's guilty. Do you think there are no bars in Haiti? Do you think they don't waste stuff on "personal luxuries" in Bangladesh? Do you think they don't waste their time and resources on shopping malls in Ethiopia? They waste resources that could have gone to the malnourished children of their own country!
Monsters, the lot of them, just as bad as the rich-worlders. Ethics demands we all live joyless lives of endless toil until every child is fed.
Rich people living in third world countries would definitely be included in that especially because rather than some vague "foreign policy" being the causal link for culpability they can often be the corrupt individuals creating the problem themselves. Saying "people who live in penthouses next to Indian slums might be living their life wrong too" is not exactly an expression of disagreement.
Perhaps I was unclear. I wasn't talking about rich people. Poor people need to enjoy life just as much as rich people, if not more. Who spends more time at bars, the rich or the poor?
Do you think an Ethiopian community is immoral because it puts effort into having enjoyable festivals, dignified funerals and large weddings? Think of all the effort that could have gone to the starving children!
Here's a more practical question for you. There's a homeless guy who hangs around my place. He's definitely not malnourished, in fact he's somewhat fat. If I give him a dollar, should he return it to me with instructions to give it to African children instead?
Having a party when there are people starving outside may actually be immoral, yes, even in Ethiopia. I'm not basing my argument on "Americans bad" so much as admitting there could be something to this whole "how are you so able to ignore the extreme suffering of others?" question... Maybe we would be better if none of us could do that.
> "It takes 5 dollars to save a starving African child, a night out with friends is the equivalent to abandoning a bus of drowning children to their deaths".
These philosophical thought experiments are too simplistic to offer any guidance. Five dollars does not save any starving child; he will need food for the rest of his childhood. And they also neglect the social aspect of the problem. What if the whole neighborhood or country is poor? It is more sensible to attack this problem using the tools of developmental economics; how can we alleviate the problem for everyone over time?
I completely agree. Funnily enough, the first published work of economics Glasgow professor of moral philosophy wrote a book about systemic issues. Before that, philosophers from Aristotle to Hume dealt with matters like credit and currency as ethical issues.
The only think I'd have to add is I don't think the thought experiment is merely "too simplistic". It's an evil sophistry designed to make people believe ethical conduct is unattainable.
And what are the answers from philosophy? Last I looked, all that philosophy could offer to questions like that was an enumeration of multiple conflicting answers.
