Emily asked:

Looking at all of the various questions on this site is quite dizzying. Though I find philosophy to be an
interesting and worthwhile subject, I can't seem to understand why or how people can ponder such
unsettling questions. Sure thinking about these questions takes no small mind and is quite
intellectually stimulating, but when you consider the subjectiveness and ambiguity of everything
involved in philosophy, doesn't it seem a little wasteful? Anyways, the questions that I really wanted to
ask, (which I am afraid to ask my philosophy teacher) is, what is your response to this quote by Karl
Marx?:

The philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point, however, is to change it.

============

I'm only a graduate student, but I could imagine spending my working life doing philosophy, so the
question you ask is a pressing one for me. I don't have an answer, but the Marx quote you mention
indicates where I'm looking. You have to ask, change what? Interpretation and bringing about change
shouldn't be two separate things. But how to put that into practice...

Steve Butterfill
University of Oxford

What is wasted? And what makes efficiency a supreme edict? Surely many forms of "culture" can be
regarded as superfluous, but often superfluity and abundance seem desirable.

Moreover, the fact that there are subjective elements in philosophy doesn't mean that is it merely
subjective. There is a subjective aspect to running 100 metres in 9.8 seconds; but this doesn't detract
from the achievement.

Karl Marx says that's the point of philosophy. Maybe he's wrong. Why not think of philosophy as a
way of changing yourself, and the way the world seems to you, and then deciding whether or not you
think there's more to be changed.

Andrew Inkpin
Friedrich Schiller University
Jena, Germany

(A) Not everything in philosophy is subjective and ambiguous. Some is, some isn't. To find out which
is which, you have to pursue the issues! And by the way, what counts as "wasteful"? That's a
philosophical question, and if you naively assume that you know the answer . . . is it wasteful to
ponder what is worth doing in life, and why? What if you assume that the answer is "just subjective,"
but you're wrong? Think (that is, philosophize) about it!

(B) A philosopher's answer to Marx: "the point of philosophy is to understand the world, not to change
it." If you wish to enter the political area and try to change the world, it is advisable that you first
understand it! Which will probably take a while. And then figure out which changes would be good,
and which bad, and which means are more likely to result in changes for the better instead of for the
worse. In fairness to Marx, he did (perhaps contrary to what that isolated quote suggests) spend a
good long time trying to understand the world. (Maybe not long enough, since it now looks like he
misjudged a thing or two.) And only then did he try to change it, or at least he (in theCommunist
Manifesto) tried to inspire others to change it, which a good many — Lenin, Stalin, Mao, et al. — (for
better or for worse??) did.

Frank Williams
Philosophy and Religion Department
Eastern Kentucky University

The point of what? Of doing philosophy? Of life generally?

The world is certainly imperfect and it is, I believe, our duty to work to change it for the better.
However unless we make some headway in "interpreting" it we are not going to be in a very good
position to understand how it ought to be changed or how to work effectively for change.

Moreover, as I understand it the goal of change is to free people from the necessity of spending all
their time scraping to get the necessities for survival, to minimize drudgery, and to give more people
the opportunity to spend more time enjoying themselves by engaging in "wasteful" but pleasurable
activities--like doing philosophy.

Harriet Baber
Department of Philosophy
University of San Diego

We expect politicians to change the world, and perhaps Marx was more of a politician. Philosophers
are not as interested in economic and social change as they are in truth, personal identity, the
concepts of morality, the nature of language, of mind and its relation to body — and I could go on. I
don't think this is "wasteful" because I wouldn't like to live in a world where such thinking didn't go on.
It's not any worse than literary criticism, art history or film theory. What if economic and social change
were the only things we could think about?

Why should philosophers try — or even want — to change things? Philosophy has no social, scientific
or political obligation.

Of course, it is "intellectually stimulating", but if you have a very dry sense of humour, it can be funny
too.

Rachel Browne