collegethoughts

            I have heard it claimed that arguing philosophy is an abstract waste of time.  Why argue over lofty concepts that, in reality, have no direct application to everyday living?  Why start endless, infinite arguments that cannot or will not be resolved, thus fruitlessly hindering the relationship between arguers?

            And I agree.  To a point.  It seems as though this problem, like many, is a matter of situation.  If the arguers are both enjoying themselves, their philosophizing could hardly be called a waste of time — even if no conclusion is reached, a good discussion will help develop each person’s theory (as they defend and refute various claims), as it simultaneously exercises their brains.

Furthermore, if they are treating each other with respect, they are building their relationship.  I have never heard anyone deny the relational beneficence of a good conversation — everybody loves a good, long discussion.  An unplanned conversation about life, love, ideals and the future is soul fodder.  I have left many of these conversations feeling more connected (to the other person, humanity, the world), more understood, more hopeful. 

A philosophical argument can have similar results, simply because it is the same forum: any time two people are thoughtfully spending time with each other, expressing their ideas and listening to new ideas, they will grow closer.  Relationships are the most important thing in life, and improving or tightening a friendship is almost never negative.

I have left out all of the other merits of philosophy; philosophers already know them, and non-philosophers don’t care (or must find out on their own).