Disclaimer: I’m using the term Philosophy in an ill-defined manner. For me, it means something like an analytical tool or a way of thinking, and not a subject studied in universities.

I grew up with a deep distaste for Philosophy, thanks to having seen the perils of eastern philosophies first hand, and also thanks to the disdain that physicists like Feynman (whom I greatly admire) showed toward the subject. However, of late, my attitude towards it has changed completely. I now “like” Philosophy a lot, so much so that I spend more time thinking of Philosophical questions than other things. (This is probably a temporary phase, like getting a new toy, or discovering a new artist.) And yet, there are times when I feel deep disgust and loathing toward it. I think I now understand the reason behind this cognitive dissonance. The issue is with the “use” of Philosophy. As long as I use it for the right thing there is no paradox, but as soon as it spills over outside of its domain there is conflict.

What is Philosophy?

Philosophy is the art of asking questions and thinking about the answers while being aware of the inconsistencies and holes and the hypotheses in your arguments. It is trying to find answers while simultaneously giving up any hope of finding a complete one. It is the art of living and thinking with unsatisfactoriness and ignorance while constantly trying to get rid of it.

What questions to ask is totally up to you and for that reason, it is a deeply personal endeavor. You can ask about very mundane things like “where to eat lunch?” or some very deep questions like “what is time?”. There is no requirement for every term to be well-defined or for every argument to be completely logical or for every hypotheses to be testable, however, you should be on the lookout for and acknowledge all the ill-defined terms and all the gaps and holes in your arguments and all the assumptions (testable or not) you’re making. This is not an innate skill but something that needs to be developed. It is a (necessary) mental exercise you’re doing to train your analytical muscles. It is the verbal, argumentative counterpart of meditation.

What is it useful for?

For me, it is mainly for fun. It is fun to think about hard questions honestly and to find flaws in my own arguments. It is like playing chess with yourself. It is liberating to not be pressured by the burden of coming up with correct answers and to be truly comfortable with asking questions, however silly.

What is it not useful for?

Anything practical.

I do not make decisions based on Philosophy. The question of whether we have free-will or not is irrelevant when it comes to deciding what to watch next on Netflix. I don’t need to know the meaning of life when I’m running. I don’t need to know the true nature of things when I’m pooping. I’m a pragmatist before I’m a theorist. For me, there is no difference between Philosophy and going to the gym.

That is not to say that Philosophy does not affect my decisions. In much the same way that I don’t make decisions based on how many kilometers I ran this week, I don’t make decisions based on Philosophical arguments. Nevertheless, being in good physical shape helps me live my life better, same with having better analytical skills. Thinking about hard questions strengthens my argumentative muscles and sharpens my bs radar. I might discover some negative habit of mine or any implicit assumptions and biases I have and change my behavior and thinking patterns accordingly. This is analogous to the way that Meditation helps me to analyze my experiential patterns. It might subtly make me become interested in a subject and disinterested in some other. I might see things with a greater resolution and thereby make more informed decisions.

Being verbal, Philosophical arguments can also be shared with others and this makes it a social endeavor. We can critically analyze each other’s arguments and increase the analytical skills of the society as an aggregate. These improvements then potentially lead to an increase in global rationality.