# Philosophy as a Secondary Skill **URL:** \ **Category:** Elliot Temple\ **Tags:** bot, cf-article\ **Created:** [October 12, 2023, 10:18am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/philosophy-as-a-secondary-skill/1880 "2023-10-12T10:18:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/elliot/32/14_2.png) [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2023, 10:18am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/philosophy-as-a-secondary-skill/1880/1 "2023-10-12T10:18:21Z")
Philosophy can be done by itself (primary) or to support other activities (secondary). It can help you do better problem solving and learning regarding any topic. So you can pursue philosophy as a means to other ends, or as an end in itself. (There are many types of philosophy; I'm mostly talking about philosophy related to rationality, critical thinking and knowledge.) * * * This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at [https://criticalfallibilism.com/philosophy-as-a-secondary-skill/](https://criticalfallibilism.com/philosophy-as-a-secondary-skill/) ---
**Author:** ![Dface](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/dface/32/3926_2.png) [@Dface](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Dface)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2026, 3:45am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/philosophy-as-a-secondary-skill/1880/2 "2026-04-20T03:45:22Z")
Analysing this paragraph a little bit: > [@Elliot](#): > > So, for example, it’s problematic to have to become the 700th best philosopher in the world just to be competent enough to use it to support your real interest of being a plumber. If you’re that good at philosophy compared to other people, and there’s such a shortage of philosophers, then maybe you should do more of it. And you’re maybe the 50,000th best plumber in the world, since there are so many competent plumbers, so why focus on that and try to move up the ranks in plumbing over focusing on being a top 1000 philosopher? This paragraph is an example of the last paragraph i think. In the last paragraph ET talks about how there’s not that many philosophers that are good today. That and it’s hard to improve and if you improve to be good at it you’re already better than most people. First sentence of the paragraph: > [@Elliot](#): > > So, for example, it’s problematic to have to become the 700th best philosopher in the world just to be competent enough to use it to support your real interest of being a plumber. You’re saying it’s problematic to have to become the 700th best philosopher in the world just to use it well enough for your real interest. Problematic means there’s a lot of problems I think to it. I saw from [oxford languages](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&hs=Izjp&sca_esv=a9b0c00381c60367&sxsrf=ANbL-n5vzPp-Az1WGnB8bb3hOON-KMXWhw:1776655679341&q=problematic&si=AL3DRZE_xiDg-d6tsHNNJuabyRZWqASW_vTbdlApI2tWEPBbcOgtvtEiZbJHjqBTSl7dgS-b7PYapG0NoI7I33_LvBZ4KkgdmeUVbCaZmumrVxTnw2srr8g%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwji3J6VvvuTAxWHD0QIHbtEMsgQ2v4IegQIGxBY&biw=1109&bih=589&dpr=3.33) that it means presenting a difficulty or problem. I think there’s problems that there’s not that much good material on philosophy and you can’t use that to improve really fast or well. It’s not like good cooking knowledge out there. Another problem is like if you’re top 700th best philosopher how much better is that? Being the 50,000th best plumber sounds good cuz there’s so many out there that being top 50,000th may mean something well about your skill. > [@Elliot](#): > > If you’re that good at philosophy compared to other people, and there’s such a shortage of philosophers, then maybe you should do more of it. The first clause talks about how good you may be at philosophy. You’re pretty far up there already. It’s a good thing. The second clause is being realistic. There’s not that many philosophers out there. The two clauses set up a problem and how you can think about the problem. You already are good at philosophy and there’s a problem about the shortage of philosophers. The third clause says maybe you should do more of it. You can get even better at it and it may help you with your problems outside of philosophy. It’s not like you have a duty I guess to help the world, but it may be beneficial to you and everybody in the world. It can really help you if many people good at philosophy. > [@Elliot](#): > > And you’re maybe the 50,000th best plumber in the world, since there are so many competent plumbers, so why focus on that and try to move up the ranks in plumbing over focusing on being a top 1000 philosopher? There’s something about the goal of being a top 1000 philosopher to consider. What are your goals on trying to move up the ranks on plumbing? ---
**Author:** ![Oracle](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/oracle/32/5980_2.png) [@Oracle](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Oracle)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2026, 4:44pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/philosophy-as-a-secondary-skill/1880/3 "2026-04-22T16:44:46Z")
interesting breakdown. for the top 700 philosopher vs top 50,000 plumber comparison, do you read that mainly as a point about scarcity, like good philosophers are so rare that even being only somewhat good puts you unusually high? or more as a point about bottlenecks, where philosophy might be worth focusing on because it improves judgment/learning/problem-solving across other fields? ---
**Author:** ![Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/elliot/32/14_2.png) [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2026, 5:08pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/philosophy-as-a-secondary-skill/1880/4 "2026-04-22T17:08:10Z")
> [@Oracle](#): > > a point about scarcity, like good philosophers are so rare that even being only somewhat good puts you unusually high? I recall intending that. It can mean multiple things though. ---
**Author:** ![Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/eternity/32/5930_2.png) [@Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Eternity)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2026, 4:58am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/philosophy-as-a-secondary-skill/1880/5 "2026-10-11T04:58:25Z")
> [@Elliot](#): > > Philosophy can be done by itself (primary) or to support other activities (secondary). It can help you do better problem solving and learning regarding any topic. So you can pursue philosophy as a means to other ends, or as an end in itself. (There are many types of philosophy; I’m mostly talking about philosophy related to rationality, critical thinking and knowledge.) Are the other types of philosophy stuff like philosophy of learning, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of science, etc.? > [@Elliot](#): > > Philosophy doesn’t need to be your top priority. You don’t have to copy me to be rational. It’s valid to pursue philosophy in a primary or secondary way. (Not pursuing philosophy at all is dangerous because our culture has lots of irrationalities and errors which a total non-philosopher wouldn’t have enough defense against. Also, everyone has some philosophy ideas whether they study it or not – it’s basically unavoidable to deal with philosophy; the question is actually whether to analyze and try to improve your philosophical ideas or not.) Hmm. So a secondary pursuit of philosophy is fine for our culture? (Then again it’s probably better than not pursuing it at all.) > [@Elliot](#): > > So, for example, mainstream cooking knowledge is fine. Sure there are flaws, such as nonstick pans being overrated (they use toxic chemicals). But most of the main ideas are reasonable. You cook using heat. You can get heat from a stove, oven, grill, microwave, etc. You put food on something to hold/contain it. You can use a pan, pot, baking dish, baking sheet, etc. You can add seasonings. You take this stuff for granted because it’s so well known. That makes sense as to why most people can pursue cooking fine as a secondary skills. Most of the main stream ideas, along with culture itself, are more-or-less fine. One can trust the experts and stuff here.