The utility of the useless
This subject is quite a common topic in the literature dating
back into the mist of history. A quick search in a search engine will lead to
many useful links. I include a few references at the end of the essay, although
I won’t be discussing these references specifically.
I shall start
my essay by referring to a number of words and common expressions in the
language that express the idea of uselessness. Then, I follow up with what we
mean or can mean by useless and utility. I’ll finish off with a short
discussion on the question: Is philosophy useful?
Regarding direct synonyms for ‘useless’ we have, amongst
others: worthless, ineffective, futile, junk, and for people we might use words
such as hopeless, stupid, unskilled, unqualified, and so on. We can expand this
list with expressions: not fit for purpose, white elephant, to buy a pup, and for
a person, an incompetent person, an inept person and so.
Although in our language we recognise the concept of “useless”
it seems that the meaning is always one of not being able to perform the
function intended. However, we’ll be hard pressed to find a varied vocabulary
to mean something without an intrinsic and intended function. If we accept that
useful is always one of function then surely usefulness cannot refer to something
which never had or does not have a function. But rather we really use “useful”
in terms of something being able to perform a function it was intended to have.
On the one hand, usefulness (or useless) can refer to a
feature that stopped performing its intended function: for example my finger
print security device on the PC has stopped working (probably due to a corrupt
driver) as opposed to a function that the intended utility is indeed not worth
it. For example the flash fitted on top-end digital cameras. They are fine to
take the occasional photo but useless to take repeated photos in complex
situations.
So what is useless (useful/utility)? A more import aspect of
our subject is that something might be useless because we do not know how to
use what we are calling useless. For example, the function of manually adding or
subtracting an exposure value on a camera from what the camera meter indicates.
In art we can refer to some paintings that are dark (Goya), or seemingly random brushstrokes (Sisley/Renoir etc). We might get the impression that
these works of art have no soul and therefore useless (as art) with no utility
as works of art.
In the case of the exposure compensation function it can
have a utility or value if we understand how a camera meter can be biased
because of how cameras interpret light. In an art painting the chances are we
are not viewing the painting under the correct light conditions and from the
correct distance. Don’t forget the first duty of a museum is not to create the
best conditions to view a painting, but rather to create the best conditions to
preserve that painting without causing it any damage.
In trying to understand utility or
usefulness we have to ask ourselves two questions: useful for whom? And useful
for what? In other words, who has the authority to justify what is useful and
what is useless?
Leandro Herreo, in his blog entry discussing the essay by Nuccio
Ordine “The usefulness of the useless”, refers to money as a possible meaning for
usefulness. In the Zhuangzi tale, Carpenter Shih comes across a serrate oak
near the village shrine. When his apprentice questioned him why he didn’t look
at the tree he told the apprentice that the tree was useless which explains why
it grew old. In a dream the tree asks the carpenter how he knew that the tree
was worthless, especially when other trees are abused. From the tree’s perspective
being near the shrine saved its life since no one abused it.
In today’s world we are told that usefulness is indeed a
function of money. We speak of investments rather than purchases for example a
house in a prime location, or an art painting by a master and so on. Of course,
a house is a place where we live and a painting is something we enjoy and
admire. But buildings and paintings have always served as things to project
wealth and power. Not to mention that especially buildings/property are also means
of keeping money safe: assuming a steady increase in inflation.
Thus, surely, as the Carpenter’s tale suggests useful for
those who can unlock and release the utility in the thing in question. An aperture compensation function is useful
for the photographer who is well skilled in photography. Ironically, even the carpenter
knew the usefulness of the tree eve if it came to him in his dreams; maybe he
was upset for not being able to cut the tree.
At this juncture the subject really hinges on the Zhuangzi
quest for the useless or the question whether there could ever be something
that is intrinsically useless but has a use; it sounds like a contradiction to
me.
Finally, what is the usefulness of Philosophy? Or, if you
like, is philosophy useful? As I have argued when it comes to utility we have
to ask ourselves the two questions: Useful for whom and for what? But this
leaves us with who is asking the questions. Unfortunately, it is a pity that
philosophy is highly criticised by scientists who, themselves, are performing philosophy
and asking philosophical questions. In effect, philosophy is what one does and
not what one says one is saying one is doing. People in general also speak of
philosophy as if there was one sort of philosophy, in the same frame of mind
that painting is only one form of painting, oil painting.
I won’t go into the various forms of philosophy suffice it
to say that the philosophy that fits the context of science is analytical
philosophy, in other words the validity of methodology and more recently
analysis of language. It is not that there is only one valid philosophy style
but that each philosophy style has its own domain.
Maybe we can conclude that usefulness or utility is a matter
of things being in their natural domain or habitat.
The usefulness of the useless
Blog Entry by Leandro Herreo discussing the subject in the
essay by the Italian Professor, Nuccio Ordine.
The Zhuangzi translated by Burton Watson from the Chinese
(The History of Chinese Philosophy): Carpenter Shih and the serrate oak.
The Utility of the Useless1. Nature 100, 176–178 (1917). https://doi.org/10.1038/100176b0
Best Lawrence
tel: 606081813
philomadrid@gmail.com
Blog: http://philomadrid.blogspot.com.es/ OR
PhiloMadrid.com
MeetUp https://www.meetup.com/PhiloMadrid-philosophy-group/
Gran Clavel
(Café-Bar): Gran vía 11, esquina C/ Clavel, 28013—Madrid
No comments:
Post a Comment