[benrutter]

Just gonna unecessarily jump in to defend Schopenhauer, and maybe Hegel! (I'll leave category theory to look after itself)

I think especially in our fast moving, low attention society, there's a tendency to reduce philosophers like Schopenhauer to a few bullet points. I definitely was really guilty of doing this when I studied philosophy in university a while back. But you get so much more out of spending time reading Schopenhauer than just those bullet points- you get insight into a whole person's way of seeing things. That's such a great thing to spend time doing!

I do realise I'm mostly arguing against a point that you didn't make, or at best, made only tangentially, but, as a pedant on the internet, I couldn't turn down the opportunity to give my unsolicited opinion.

[pfortuny]

Right you are, indeed. I was first annoyed by your comment but (miraculously) I stepped aside for a few seconds!

Of course. But nevertheless, Category Theory or Schopenhauer are good ways to get interesting insight which may (emphasis) be useful. But not as a tool (which is how CT is usually sold in those tutorials), but as a (long) path to knowledge. Only some times and some people get "useful" results from studying them.

Trying to sell CT as a means to a utilitarian end is prostituting it. Like selling Hegel to learn how to body-build.

Thanks for taking the time!

[benrutter]

I'm glad I did- I think the utilitarian distinction you made is such a good point.

Interesting as category theory is, and even while it does have applications, I think claiming that it's value is somehow in helping you learn Haskell/Elm/Gleam etc is just dishonest and misleading.