I do think that philosophy fundamentally is intellectual gymnastics, in the sense that it is a game or an art that shouldn't be expected to have any "productive/practical/useful" output.
I also think that philosophy is an extremely valuable human activity worthy of lots of respect, likewise generally with any kind of gymnastics (sports), games or art.
Productivity is not the only reason to live for humans, and many productive people are not driven by productivity. Most scientists and engineers are much more driven by curiosity, mastery, morality or aesthetics (not just visual, but intellectual beauty and elegance). It's generally the same with most ambitious people, sure they may be superficially driven by power or money, but I think it's much more about realizing a certain aesthetic vision of who you want to be as a person.
All of these activities lead to productive outcomes as side-effects. Games are not qualitatively much different, they may just be quantitatively less efficient. And, even if it shouldn't be expected (shouldn't be the reason to do them), they do tend to have some great productive output now-and-then.
I suppose that this has a parallel cynical interpretation:
- Humans tend to be selfish, in the sense that they tend to prioritize activities that develop their ego. Well generally activities that have pleasurable outcomes, and developing one's ego tends to be pleasurable due the heuristics evolution has baked into us. I guess that those that get more pleasure out of developing their ego are called ambitious.
- Productivity is fundamentally about being selfless: doing things that are useful for others.
- These aims align to different degrees for different activities, and I suppose that they align less for things that we call games, and I think that philosophy is closer to this category than otherwise.
- The most obvious and consistent productive side-effect of games might be as entertainment for expectators. I honestly think that the main value of philosophy is that it is just engaging and entretaining to read, which is also worthy of respect. Games and philosophy also tend to have other more substantive productive outputs, but much less frequently.
I'm not a big fan of this perspective, but I do think that it is somewhat equivalent to my thoughts above.
Philosophy is about living beyond the instincts given by evolution. It’s about living through reason, rather than pleasure. Pleasure is still important and a part of it, too.
I find it amusing that I'm slightly disagreeing about philosophy with `philosopher1234` but I do think there is a distinction between wisdom and reason and "philosophy", after all, translates to "love of, or friendship with, wisdom".
While I certainly can't claim that I truly understand their works, Hume and Kant and Hegel have taught me certain mental devices and ways of thinking that I use every day at my job.
I also think that philosophy is an extremely valuable human activity worthy of lots of respect, likewise generally with any kind of gymnastics (sports), games or art.
Productivity is not the only reason to live for humans, and many productive people are not driven by productivity. Most scientists and engineers are much more driven by curiosity, mastery, morality or aesthetics (not just visual, but intellectual beauty and elegance). It's generally the same with most ambitious people, sure they may be superficially driven by power or money, but I think it's much more about realizing a certain aesthetic vision of who you want to be as a person.
All of these activities lead to productive outcomes as side-effects. Games are not qualitatively much different, they may just be quantitatively less efficient. And, even if it shouldn't be expected (shouldn't be the reason to do them), they do tend to have some great productive output now-and-then.