Why is philosophy treated differently to good fiction? I'm honestly not trolling, this has always perplexed me...

Why is philosophy treated differently to good fiction? I'm honestly not trolling, this has always perplexed me. If anyone could give pointers to something to read to convince me either way that'd be great - although I realise that in of itself would be the main gripe I have with philosophy: what makes someone's (largely baseless) thoughts worth considering as so meaningful?

Also - what is it to understand philosophy? When I've asked this question of others they say something along the lines of "well you must not understand it then" . But I am fairly well read by most metrics of that phrase - so what does it mean? Is not understanding simply not agreeing on interpretation? Is it literally not understanding the arguments they propose?

The ideas behind the thoughts. What they mean. Maybe you aren't interpreting them well enough.

A lot of philosophers are really bad prose writers.

Though those that aren't, are usually regarded as having high literary merit, most famous example is probably Nietzsche.

but when equally renowned - or whatever - philosophers present differing arguments, how does this amount to anything more than a sort of godless faith in what they say? Especially when it is all based on speculation and individual interpretation

This is the wrong question to ask, probably because you have a limited grasp of how vast of a field philosophy is. Some philosophy is more amenable to certain literary qualities where others are not. A treatise on philosophical pessimism is conducive to flowery prose while a paper in the philosophy of physics on why the substantival manifold is ruled out by the hole argument is not.

Understanding is a comprehension of intent. If you don't comprehend what the author means by whatever he is proposing, then you do not understand it.

sorry I should've clarified - I mean specifically that philosophy which has not become science - i.e. I am not talking about how mathematicians and physicists used to be deemed philosophers, I'm talking about the unfalsifiable: is this not a case of "alternative medicine" vs. medicine? In that once it is empirical it is no longer philosophy and becomes something else

What they provide to prove it. Or through your own observations and experience. For example, I understand that some philosophers are combatilists without reasoning, but I reason it myself so I am a combatilists. I agree with both the rationalists and empiricists.

Why can nothing rational be philosophy

As to your second paragraph, just read PI, it'll clear everything up.

surely a proof that relies on anecdote is no proof at all?

A lot philosophy is actually rational. A lot isn't. There are a lot of philosophers that consider it possible to comprehend the universe through logical methods. A lot of philosophers do not consider the universe rational. A lot of philosophers do not even study the objective universe but intersubjective matter like the arts, qualia, intuition.

Philosophy is so wide a field that, for example, ontology, epistemology, philosophy of science, among others, are what you would consider rational but aesthetics, ethics, among others, are not.

Philosophy can study the objective universe and often does using logic but it tried to go above and beyond that, and above and beyond that which we can measure as well so often that the objective universe is just a small portion of what it can study.

>I mean specifically that philosophy which has not become science - i.e. I am not talking about how mathematicians and physicists used to be deemed philosophers

Neither am I. I'm talking about contemporary branches of philosophy that have nothing to do with what you deem the realm of unfalsifiable opinions (however suspect such a denotation is), like the philosophy of math or science, which are decidedly NOT science, but instead concern themselves with conceptual and philosophical problems in those respective disciplines, positions well-informed by empirical evidence but not resolved by them. How would they fit into your understanding of philosophy?

>that philosophy which has not become science

Things like ethical theories and metaphysics are unfalsifiable and definitely not science, but they aren't conducive to purple prose, and are generally written in highly specified, dense terminology. It's not really possible to write about whether or not numbers "exist," for example, in a way that has both style and substance. So, philosophers (particularly analytic philosophers) chose substance.

People say you don't understand philosophy because you're trying to ground it in different fields (science or literature). Though philosophy feels like sort of a middle ground between the two, it's actually far and away its own study, and the things that make a good scientist, good author, or good philosopher have very little overlap. Scientists look at what already exists and find patterns that can be used to make predictions. Authors evoke emotion via language. Philosophers develop systems which tell us how to approach certain problems.

If you think a philosopher's "thoughts" are "baseless," then you need to take a step back, because you really are missing the point. Philosophy isn't about thoughts. Philosophy is about how to think.

>what makes someone's (largely baseless) thoughts worth considering as so meaningful?

They aren't baseless. Philosophical works are by and large founded on logic and reason.

Furthermore, philosophy shapes civilization. For example, there is a philosophy that centers around the ethics of human subject research. There is the philosophy of science, as another user mentioned. There is political philosophy.

You don't really *explicitly* get this--ideas directly related to solving real world problems--with fiction, which, I think, is why philosophy and fiction are treated differently. The former focuses on the real, while fiction focuses on the imaginary with usually some underlying social meaning attached to it.

>Also - what is it to understand philosophy?

Understanding it means you understand what the author's point is. You can understand something without agreeing with it. I understand the Nazi motivation that led to the genocide of the Jews, but I don't agree with it.

I've also found that being well read in one category doesn't mean you'll be good at another. Philosophy can be hard if you're a novice due to the widely varying jargon and esoteric, complex nature of the subject matter.

I'm sorry mam, but philosophy only funded civilization inasmuch as the ancient romans used to believe in it before christian dogma took over. In that we saw people such as Marcus Aurelius and other rich and wealthy that believed in Epicureanism, Neoplatonism, and most notably Stoicism. All current history is driven by exploitative capitalism. The closes you will get is Alan Greenspan believing in Ayn Rand, but trust me that filthy faggot would have been a filthy faggot had Ayn Rand existed or not. Hence at the root of history with our current cultural ambiance is not philosophy but primitive urges for accumulation and power.

sure thing champ

You could indeed argue that philosophy isn't practically applied and not consciously known. But there's a certain sphere of ideology in which it manifests. Just the main idea that inequality is unfair is mostly derived from philosophical notions used to despatch the previous monarchic systems of government. This rules all over western thought, including some governments but mostly within the psyche of believers in democracy. Right now the prevailing ideology is a mixture of christian elements and elements from the enlightenment era. Further ideology seems to be only a progressive dismemberment of these tenets and dissolution into what you mentioned: hedonism and pursuit of wealth, without a philosophical backup plan. Maybe we're in the build up for a new system that will overtake law and political thought?

Don't interpret, experiment.

Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Plato and Kierk were all great writers desu

The Tractatus deals with the most stereotypically dry subjects imaginable and it's a work of art in my opinion

I don't disagree, but Wittgenstein was a unique character with obvious influences stemming from that literary-philosophical side of the discipline. There is just as much technical as literary philosophy

Read Derrida