Comments on: Philosophy is difficult – Applied Philosophy – 1 http://fortruth.wordpress.com/2008/08/23/philosophy-is-difficult-applied-philosophy-1/ Sun, 20 Dec 2009 23:10:36 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: K. M. http://fortruth.wordpress.com/2008/08/23/philosophy-is-difficult-applied-philosophy-1/#comment-206 K. M. Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:17:24 +0000 http://fortruth.wordpress.com/?p=97#comment-206 Burgess, You put the possible reasons very well. I believe point 2 in your comment is the most important reason. I intend to explore that further in part 3 of this series. Burgess,
You put the possible reasons very well.
I believe point 2 in your comment is the most important reason. I intend to explore that further in part 3 of this series.

]]> By: Burgess Laughlin http://fortruth.wordpress.com/2008/08/23/philosophy-is-difficult-applied-philosophy-1/#comment-198 Burgess Laughlin Sat, 23 Aug 2008 21:45:51 +0000 http://fortruth.wordpress.com/?p=97#comment-198 Perhaps the <b>Rule of Inverse Interest</b> applies: The more fundamental the subject of discussion the less interest there is, in society in general. If this rule is true (and not merely a cynical observation), then why? I think there might be several reasons operating together, but not in the same individuals: 1. The more fundamental a principle is, the more intelligence is required is to formulate it or even to understand or challenge it if it has been proposed by someone else. 2. We live in a division of labor society, whether in India or the USA, leaving philosophy as much a specialization as technology is, but with philosophy being a specialization whose content is often mistaken, difficult to apply, hard to test, difficult to grasp, and unremunerative (on the short-term). 3. Many individuals who have the intelligence to do so, don't pursue philosophical subjects because they are satisfied with the philosophy they already have--that is, they think they have no <i>problem</i> for which someone else's philosophy can provide a <i>solution</i>. 4. Inevitably, and by definition, in daily life there are more problems of application than there are problems of principles; and philosophy is the science of the most fundamental principles, while technology is the art of the most detailed (and numerous) applications. Perhaps the Rule of Inverse Interest applies: The more fundamental the subject of discussion the less interest there is, in society in general.

If this rule is true (and not merely a cynical observation), then why? I think there might be several reasons operating together, but not in the same individuals:

1. The more fundamental a principle is, the more intelligence is required is to formulate it or even to understand or challenge it if it has been proposed by someone else.

2. We live in a division of labor society, whether in India or the USA, leaving philosophy as much a specialization as technology is, but with philosophy being a specialization whose content is often mistaken, difficult to apply, hard to test, difficult to grasp, and unremunerative (on the short-term).

3. Many individuals who have the intelligence to do so, don’t pursue philosophical subjects because they are satisfied with the philosophy they already have–that is, they think they have no problem for which someone else’s philosophy can provide a solution.

4. Inevitably, and by definition, in daily life there are more problems of application than there are problems of principles; and philosophy is the science of the most fundamental principles, while technology is the art of the most detailed (and numerous) applications.

]]>