[P]hilosophy… creates… minds that can — as Aristotle suggests — entertain a thought without accepting it. … [T]he open-minded study of different philosophies at least opens one up to the possibility that one is wrong. One realizes, like Socrates did, that knowledge is anything but certain, that true wisdom lies in realizing how much one does not know, in understanding that our knowledge of the universe (and therefore of earthly things like politics) is utterly inadequate, perhaps comparable to the area of a pin’s tip against a table. This realization makes one less angry when confronted with opposing views, replacing counterproductive anger with productive curiosity.
Rachel Maddow on the Value of Philosophy

"There are skills that you learn by becoming academically skilled at doing historical work and reading and writing philosophy that will help you make arguments about everything from whether you should get your tires rotated, to whether that right person should marry you some day, to whether or not you’re going to get in the door of heaven. And being able to deal with evidence in a rational, substantive way is something that you learn through the study of history and philosophy. And it’s just worth doing in life. …It will make you a more effective person in life."

  Download

Nick Bostrom on the status quo bias

[P]eople are going to do philosophy one way or another. When a politician argues that a bill unfairly impinges on our freedoms, he’s doing philosophy. When someone expresses a belief in God, she’s doing philosophy. If we stop teaching people how philosophy is done, we’re not going to get less philosophy, we’re going to get shitty philosophy, which leads to shitty, incoherent policies.
Fun reads for philosophers

Looking for summer reading?

Disagreement in philosophy is this very strange phenomenon. Say you’re involved in a political debate: you have this sense that each side is trying to crush and defeat the other one. Philosophers have a very different way of disagreeing. If you read a philosophy paper that disagrees with another philosophy paper, the philosopher will start out by trying to give the most charitable interpretation of what the other might say, and then offer objections. But then they even do their best to think of how the person might respond to those objections, and so forth. It’s such a charitable, reasonable way of thinking something is a mistake.

How to Pronounce Wittgenstein (by PronunciationManual)

I can post this because philosophy.