Total Posts:61|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Formally studying philosophy.

Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 11:50:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Is it worth it to study philosophy in college? I'm not talking about the potential employment or financial opportunities, I'm asking as if my goal was simply to become an expert in it. Is it possible to become as fluent in philosophy as someone who had (say) a Ph.D simply by reading the stuff and debating actual philosophers? I never needed instruction to learn the things I'm knowledgeable about in history or politics. I just read a lot and discussed them with other people who knew more than me. I want to be a philosopher when I'm older, but I don't want to waste time with an actual class if it isn't absolutely necessary (and how much truth is there to the stuff they say about continental philosophy?).

I am very interested in philosophy, and when I was younger I always speculated about the nature of time, consciousness, perception, etc. That's what got me into philosophy in the first place, and a lot of the stuff I came up with had a lot in common with what ancient philosophers were thinking. How much does that help me?

Also, how many professional or influential philosophers today never through formal education?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 12:05:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I loved my philosophy intro class. I would say it was my favourite class, but it was also a small class (30 or so people), and I would say that was the key to making it so enjoyable. We got pretty close to each other through that class (my philosophy prof. used to give my rides to campus, for example) and the conversations we had on the material were always interesting and enlightening.

The material itself is pretty easy to find, and all the canonical works have been examined to death, so you can easily find clarification on a work you find hard to understand somewhere online. The real value of the class, for me at least, was the interaction and exchange of ideas. So, if it's a small class, I'd say absolutely take it. If it's a large class, it'll be little more than a lecture, which is no fun.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 12:16:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I only took logic.

I think most philosophy can be picked up, like you say as an autodidact. However, I would put logic into a bit of a different category. It's largely symbolism and very much like mathematics. The key to its usefulness is when you are able to use it to deconstruct arguments...if you're able to apply the symbolism to English, you get a very strong skill set.

However, I would not advise self-teaching logic, unless you're the good will hunting type and can just pick up a math book and read it like Tolkien.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 12:23:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 12:05:37 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
I loved my philosophy intro class. I would say it was my favourite class, but it was also a small class (30 or so people), and I would say that was the key to making it so enjoyable. We got pretty close to each other through that class (my philosophy prof. used to give my rides to campus, for example) and the conversations we had on the material were always interesting and enlightening.

The material itself is pretty easy to find, and all the canonical works have been examined to death, so you can easily find clarification on a work you find hard to understand somewhere online. The real value of the class, for me at least, was the interaction and exchange of ideas. So, if it's a small class, I'd say absolutely take it. If it's a large class, it'll be little more than a lecture, which is no fun.

Where did you go? My Intro class was awful.

-we basically just had to rehash rudimentary crap that has little to no relevance to contemporary thought (Leibniz anyone?)
-the class was full of people who think of philosophy as mainly dealing with the purpose of life so their sighs of boredom constantly echoed throughout the classroom.
-the curriculum called for us to cover over a dozen philosophers (Heraclitus, Parmenides, Aritotle, Plato, Socrates, Leibniz, Spinoza, Descartes, Hegel, Hume, Berkley, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Schopenheaur, and Nietzsche) which precluded any and all deep discussion on important subtleties in a given philosopher.
-basically five to seven more complaints regarding the lack of any deep reflection allowed for in the class.

Seriously, one of the questions on the final asked the name of the school of epistemology that Locke belonged to.

I suppose the good parts were that my professor basically let me do my papers on whatever I wanted so log as I could connect it to the general theme in *some* way. The guy was also interesting to talk to. We mostly just quibbled about Hegel and Marx though. He wasn't particularly knowledgeable. I can name half a dozen members on this site who could talk circles around the guy. Still, don't get the opportunity to talk to too many people about philosophy irl. I also got to do a half hour talk during finals week too (on the "Masters of Suspicion's" respective approaches to religion) which was an interesting experience.

Maybe this isn't how other Phil intro classes go though. My school jus happens to be really shltty.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 12:34:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 12:23:05 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 5/30/2013 12:05:37 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
I loved my philosophy intro class. I would say it was my favourite class, but it was also a small class (30 or so people), and I would say that was the key to making it so enjoyable. We got pretty close to each other through that class (my philosophy prof. used to give my rides to campus, for example) and the conversations we had on the material were always interesting and enlightening.

The material itself is pretty easy to find, and all the canonical works have been examined to death, so you can easily find clarification on a work you find hard to understand somewhere online. The real value of the class, for me at least, was the interaction and exchange of ideas. So, if it's a small class, I'd say absolutely take it. If it's a large class, it'll be little more than a lecture, which is no fun.

Where did you go? My Intro class was awful.

-we basically just had to rehash rudimentary crap that has little to no relevance to contemporary thought (Leibniz anyone?)
-the class was full of people who think of philosophy as mainly dealing with the purpose of life so their sighs of boredom constantly echoed throughout the classroom.
-the curriculum called for us to cover over a dozen philosophers (Heraclitus, Parmenides, Aritotle, Plato, Socrates, Leibniz, Spinoza, Descartes, Hegel, Hume, Berkley, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Schopenheaur, and Nietzsche) which precluded any and all deep discussion on important subtleties in a given philosopher.
-basically five to seven more complaints regarding the lack of any deep reflection allowed for in the class.

Seriously, one of the questions on the final asked the name of the school of epistemology that Locke belonged to.

I suppose the good parts were that my professor basically let me do my papers on whatever I wanted so log as I could connect it to the general theme in *some* way. The guy was also interesting to talk to. We mostly just quibbled about Hegel and Marx though. He wasn't particularly knowledgeable. I can name half a dozen members on this site who could talk circles around the guy. Still, don't get the opportunity to talk to too many people about philosophy irl. I also got to do a half hour talk during finals week too (on the "Masters of Suspicion's" respective approaches to religion) which was an interesting experience.

Maybe this isn't how other Phil intro classes go though. My school jus happens to be really shltty.

You guys didn't cover Kant?

We didn't cover as many philosophers in our class. The main focus was on Socrates, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Foucault and Deleuze. We got into Aquinas/ Anselm/ Hume/ etc. whenever one of us had a point about that person during our class discussions and we covered a bit about stoicism, but it was a pretty open class in terms of what we talked about in class. That's what I liked about it -- the freedom to really explore concepts.

There was a lot of debating too. We'd often get into topics like anthropology, physics, and politics. I guess it really depends on your exact situation. I'd say the smaller the class, and the more open-ended the class is allowed to be, the more enjoyable philosophy classes are.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 12:39:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I suppose I forgot to mention Kant. Ma bad.

And I don't think it was related to class size. By the end of the semester there weren't more than twenty of us in there. It had more to do with the fact that only three or four of us gave a shlt. I'm almost certain the mean Iq at my college has only two digits.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 1:08:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 11:50:19 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Is it worth it to study philosophy in college?

As long as philosophy isn't your only major, yes.

I'm not talking about the potential employment or financial opportunities, I'm asking as if my goal was simply to become an expert in it.

That depends on the level of education you think is required to be an expert. If a terminal degree is what you're shooting for, or the expertise which would theoretically correlate -then I'd suggest that you be prepared to bartend for a long time.

Is it possible to become as fluent in philosophy as someone who had (say) a Ph.D simply by reading the stuff and debating actual philosophers?

No. You need a classroom environment, and preferably at the graduate level. At many universities though, you can do take graduate level humanities courses as an undergrad. This is something you might consider.

I never needed instruction to learn the things I'm knowledgeable about in history or politics. I just read a lot and discussed them with other people who knew more than me. I want to be a philosopher when I'm older, but I don't want to waste time with an actual class if it isn't absolutely necessary (and how much truth is there to the stuff they say about continental philosophy?).

It would be better to just do something, and philosophize about what you do.

I am very interested in philosophy, and when I was younger I always speculated about the nature of time, consciousness, perception, etc. That's what got me into philosophy in the first place, and a lot of the stuff I came up with had a lot in common with what ancient philosophers were thinking. How much does that help me?

You can read the works from the philosophical cannons of antiquity, and even to a large degree of the present by only going to your library -but to read is not necessarily to understand. To understand requires a grounding, which you're not likely to get outside of the university setting -though I would still nevertheless encourage you to read anything and everything you can.

Also, how many professional or influential philosophers today never through formal education?

I have no earthly idea.

--

My advice would be to double major in philosophy and something else. Make yourself employable first, philosophize afterward.
Tsar of DDO
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 1:24:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 1:08:47 AM, YYW wrote:

My advice would be to double major in philosophy and something else. Make yourself employable first, philosophize afterward.

^^ What he said.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 4:04:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 1:08:47 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/29/2013 11:50:19 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Is it worth it to study philosophy in college?

As long as philosophy isn't your only major, yes.

I'm not talking about the potential employment or financial opportunities, I'm asking as if my goal was simply to become an expert in it.

That depends on the level of education you think is required to be an expert. If a terminal degree is what you're shooting for, or the expertise which would theoretically correlate -then I'd suggest that you be prepared to bartend for a long time.

Is it possible to become as fluent in philosophy as someone who had (say) a Ph.D simply by reading the stuff and debating actual philosophers?

No. You need a classroom environment, and preferably at the graduate level. At many universities though, you can do take graduate level humanities courses as an undergrad. This is something you might consider.

I never needed instruction to learn the things I'm knowledgeable about in history or politics. I just read a lot and discussed them with other people who knew more than me. I want to be a philosopher when I'm older, but I don't want to waste time with an actual class if it isn't absolutely necessary (and how much truth is there to the stuff they say about continental philosophy?).

It would be better to just do something, and philosophize about what you do.

I am very interested in philosophy, and when I was younger I always speculated about the nature of time, consciousness, perception, etc. That's what got me into philosophy in the first place, and a lot of the stuff I came up with had a lot in common with what ancient philosophers were thinking. How much does that help me?

You can read the works from the philosophical cannons of antiquity, and even to a large degree of the present by only going to your library -but to read is not necessarily to understand. To understand requires a grounding, which you're not likely to get outside of the university setting -though I would still nevertheless encourage you to read anything and everything you can.

Why not? There are plenty of introductory books. I liked 'Philosophy for Dummies,' actually.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 6:44:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 1:24:33 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/30/2013 1:08:47 AM, YYW wrote:

My advice would be to double major in philosophy and something else. Make yourself employable first, philosophize afterward.

^^ What he said.

He's probably rich enough such that he doesn't need to find a job. His parents let him drop out of high school and supported him/are still supporting him.

Philosophy has one of the highest unemployment rates, and there are very few jobs in academia at the moment.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 7:55:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
-we basically just had to rehash rudimentary crap that has little to no relevance to contemporary thought (Leibniz anyone?)

That"s not really how philosophy works. For example, Leibnitz can be seen as a precursor to much of major thinkers of the 20th century, who obviously have a fairly big influence on contemporary issues. His Monadology has conceptual and structural similarities to the underpinnings of phenomenology, logical positivism, Wittgensteinian philosophy and various others significantly important recent & modern developments.

-the class was full of people who think of philosophy as mainly dealing with the purpose of life so their sighs of boredom constantly echoed throughout the classroom.

You"ll get idiots everywhere, sadly. I remember in one of my modules there was a woman who prefaced all her contributions with "in my experience as a mother" and by the end of the term I"d have happily seen her trampled by cows.

-the curriculum called for us to cover over a dozen philosophers (Heraclitus, Parmenides, Aritotle, Plato, Socrates, Leibniz, Spinoza, Descartes, Hegel, Hume, Berkley, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Schopenheaur, and Nietzsche) which precluded any and all deep discussion on important subtleties in a given philosopher.

So pre-Socratic, early and late Enlightenment and early modern? What did you expect from an introduction to philosophy course if not an introduction to the major developments through the history of philosophy?

-basically five to seven more complaints regarding the lack of any deep reflection allowed for in the class.

Lectures aren"t the place for that though, that"s what seminars and other settings are for. Lectures for pretty much any subject are just infodumps with brief clarification Q&As. What level was this at?

He wasn't particularly knowledgeable. I can name half a dozen members on this site who could talk circles around the guy. Still, don't get the opportunity to talk to too many people about philosophy irl. I also got to do a half hour talk during finals week too (on the "Masters of Suspicion's" respective approaches to religion) which was an interesting experience.

Problem endemic to academics of a certain type, unfortunately; they have studied their interest areas to a staggering degree, but aren"t necessarily that bright or well informed outside of those areas.

In response to the OP "

The thing with philosophy is, beyond the sadly necessary historic aspect of it, you need to challenge your own ideas, which means actually having contact with other people who"re dealing with similar concepts as you are. Without a doubt the most educational, enjoyable and productive side of studying it properly is engaging and debating ideas. Having to think on your feet, defend and critically analyse ideas " your own and others" " is what will best teach you"re the methodological tools necessary to understand and contribute to philosophical thought.

If you don"t want to do that, I"d suggest studying something like political history instead. Without exception, the people I saw who didn"t engage were the ones who did the worst and trotted out the most obviously terrible, underdeveloped ideas. Well, them and the loudmouths who had arrived at class under the impression they knew the answers and were just there to preach; they weren"t popular and the professors often moaned about them at length and didn"t invite them to the pub. Which, frankly, is where the meat of the discussion usually took place.

The thing with philosophy is, for it to be of any worth, you have to do it, not just read about it. Putting an argument under pressure, getting different perspectives and having to defend positions " ones you agree with and ones you don"t " is how you learn the topology of ideas, where the cracks are and which bits are worth looking into further.

As for being "a philosopher", well" unless you go the academic route, it just isn"t going to happen because that"s the only way anyone will pay you for it. The only people who could be described as doing it professionally these days are academics. Not only that, but without access to other disciplines and the experts in them, you"ll never have much contemporary to philosophise about. So basically, if you don"t get a PhD then you won"t get a job doing philosophy for a living.

What do you mean by "the stuff they say about continental philosophy"?
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 8:02:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Insert your own grammar and tenses. Posting from work is not conducive to precise English.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 9:45:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 6:44:31 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/30/2013 1:24:33 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/30/2013 1:08:47 AM, YYW wrote:

My advice would be to double major in philosophy and something else. Make yourself employable first, philosophize afterward.

^^ What he said.

He's probably rich enough such that he doesn't need to find a job. His parents let him drop out of high school and supported him/are still supporting him.

royal's parents grew so sick of her that they threw her out early, and now she thinks that 16 year olds aren't minors because she was living on the street at that age.

Philosophy has one of the highest unemployment rates, and there are very few jobs in academia at the moment.

If you recall the entire point of this thread was to NOT GO TO A PHILOSOPHY COURSE UNLESS IT WAS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. I'm sorry that knowledge takes a backseat to employment in your little world, but I'd rather be a pauper who actually understood epistemology than a working derp who reads David Hume and thinks that he's getting some sort of intellectual preponderance out of it. Also, there happen to be things called "double degrees," but I'm not surprised you haven't heard of it given the college you presumably go to.

Why don't you go harass Bieber or Cody about it? After all, they were stupid enough to do it themselves.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 9:50:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 7:55:06 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
-we basically just had to rehash rudimentary crap that has little to no relevance to contemporary thought (Leibniz anyone?)

That"s not really how philosophy works. For example, Leibnitz can be seen as a precursor to much of major thinkers of the 20th century, who obviously have a fairly big influence on contemporary issues. His Monadology has conceptual and structural similarities to the underpinnings of phenomenology, logical positivism, Wittgensteinian philosophy and various others significantly important recent & modern developments.

-the class was full of people who think of philosophy as mainly dealing with the purpose of life so their sighs of boredom constantly echoed throughout the classroom.

You"ll get idiots everywhere, sadly. I remember in one of my modules there was a woman who prefaced all her contributions with "in my experience as a mother" and by the end of the term I"d have happily seen her trampled by cows.

-the curriculum called for us to cover over a dozen philosophers (Heraclitus, Parmenides, Aritotle, Plato, Socrates, Leibniz, Spinoza, Descartes, Hegel, Hume, Berkley, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Schopenheaur, and Nietzsche) which precluded any and all deep discussion on important subtleties in a given philosopher.

So pre-Socratic, early and late Enlightenment and early modern? What did you expect from an introduction to philosophy course if not an introduction to the major developments through the history of philosophy?

-basically five to seven more complaints regarding the lack of any deep reflection allowed for in the class.

Lectures aren"t the place for that though, that"s what seminars and other settings are for. Lectures for pretty much any subject are just infodumps with brief clarification Q&As. What level was this at?

He wasn't particularly knowledgeable. I can name half a dozen members on this site who could talk circles around the guy. Still, don't get the opportunity to talk to too many people about philosophy irl. I also got to do a half hour talk during finals week too (on the "Masters of Suspicion's" respective approaches to religion) which was an interesting experience.

Problem endemic to academics of a certain type, unfortunately; they have studied their interest areas to a staggering degree, but aren"t necessarily that bright or well informed outside of those areas.

In response to the OP "

The thing with philosophy is, beyond the sadly necessary historic aspect of it, you need to challenge your own ideas, which means actually having contact with other people who"re dealing with similar concepts as you are. Without a doubt the most educational, enjoyable and productive side of studying it properly is engaging and debating ideas. Having to think on your feet, defend and critically analyse ideas " your own and others" " is what will best teach you"re the methodological tools necessary to understand and contribute to philosophical thought.

If you don"t want to do that, I"d suggest studying something like political history instead. Without exception, the people I saw who didn"t engage were the ones who did the worst and trotted out the most obviously terrible, underdeveloped ideas. Well, them and the loudmouths who had arrived at class under the impression they knew the answers and were just there to preach; they weren"t popular and the professors often moaned about them at length and didn"t invite them to the pub. Which, frankly, is where the meat of the discussion usually took place.

The thing with philosophy is, for it to be of any worth, you have to do it, not just read about it. Putting an argument under pressure, getting different perspectives and having to defend positions " ones you agree with and ones you don"t " is how you learn the topology of ideas, where the cracks are and which bits are worth looking into further.

As for being "a philosopher", well" unless you go the academic route, it just isn"t going to happen because that"s the only way anyone will pay you for it. The only people who could be described as doing it professionally these days are academics. Not only that, but without access to other disciplines and the experts in them, you"ll never have much contemporary to philosophise about. So basically, if you don"t get a PhD then you won"t get a job doing philosophy for a living.

What do you mean by "the stuff they say about continental philosophy"?

Uh... you know, doesn't have anything to do with modern thought or mathematics, things like "arguments" take a backseat to history lessons and reinterpreting old philosophers, stuff like that.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 10:11:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 9:50:53 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Uh... you know, doesn't have anything to do with modern thought or mathematics, things like "arguments" take a backseat to history lessons and reinterpreting old philosophers, stuff like that.

Anyone who says that is spectacularly ignorant, so you can safely ignore them. There's an awful lot of guff, but that can be said of anything and is mostly limited to the critical theorists. Unless you're studying something like English lit., there's no real need to deal with that though. Continental Philosophy was actually my favourite final-year undergrad module.

Besides, you can't really understand modern philosophy at all without having studied things like logical positivism, existentialism and phenomenology. It's also tremendously important in linguistic philosophy and political philosophy.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 11:07:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 11:50:19 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Is it worth it to study philosophy in college? I'm not talking about the potential employment or financial opportunities, I'm asking as if my goal was simply to become an expert in it. Is it possible to become as fluent in philosophy as someone who had (say) a Ph.D simply by reading the stuff and debating actual philosophers? I never needed instruction to learn the things I'm knowledgeable about in history or politics. I just read a lot and discussed them with other people who knew more than me. I want to be a philosopher when I'm older, but I don't want to waste time with an actual class if it isn't absolutely necessary (and how much truth is there to the stuff they say about continental philosophy?).

I am very interested in philosophy, and when I was younger I always speculated about the nature of time, consciousness, perception, etc. That's what got me into philosophy in the first place, and a lot of the stuff I came up with had a lot in common with what ancient philosophers were thinking. How much does that help me?

Also, how many professional or influential philosophers today never through formal education?

Today, everybody has formal education in the field. You can't gain the fluency of a Ph.D just be reading and discussing; you need to have your work seriously scrutinized by someone in the field. Trust me, I went through 4 years of the topic (just graduated with a BA) and professional feedback is crucial. It's a field where wording is so precise that it's almost impossible for those outside the field to break in.

If you have a passion, go for it. A lot of it is how much you put in to it, but if you really go for it it'll teach you to critically think and dissect ideas. If your department is in America it'll be almost certain full of analytic philosophers, and the exposure I got to continentals was in polisci departments.

Here's my take on the breakdown: Analytic philosophers are serious, serious thinkers. You just can't rival the kind of precision in thought and depth that they give to concepts anywhere else. The continentals can sometimes be a little frivolous, but the field is broader so they'll know more about fields like sociology, political theory, etc. If you can avoid the frivolous ones then there's definitely value to the continentals even if the analytics are loathe to say so. I think the gap is narrowing and both sides have sort of begun to make peace with the other.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 1:15:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I took four or five philosophy courses in college and I thought they were worthwhile. In philosophy and most other subjects, an introductory course is most worthwhile because that is where you learn the basic terminology and the fundamental concepts. That helps later because it gives you knowledge you need to search for more.

With video lectures now widely available, taking a live course is not as important as it used to be. Still, it's important to have a mindset of not jumping into the deep end of the pool. So I'd say intro courses are important, but not essential.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 4:38:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 1:15:30 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I took four or five philosophy courses in college and I thought they were worthwhile. In philosophy and most other subjects, an introductory course is most worthwhile because that is where you learn the basic terminology and the fundamental concepts. That helps later because it gives you knowledge you need to search for more.

With video lectures now widely available, taking a live course is not as important as it used to be. Still, it's important to have a mindset of not jumping into the deep end of the pool. So I'd say intro courses are important, but not essential.

I agree with Roy and will highly recommend "The Teaching Company" philosophy courses, you get great lectures by some of the best professors in the country.

A great intro course is this one, Dan Robinson is as good as a professor gets, and it's not that pricey if you use Pirate Bay :)

http://www.thegreatcourses.com...
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 6:03:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 9:45:04 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 5/30/2013 6:44:31 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/30/2013 1:24:33 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/30/2013 1:08:47 AM, YYW wrote:

My advice would be to double major in philosophy and something else. Make yourself employable first, philosophize afterward.

^^ What he said.

He's probably rich enough such that he doesn't need to find a job. His parents let him drop out of high school and supported him/are still supporting him.

royal's parents grew so sick of her that they threw her out early, and now she thinks that 16 year olds aren't minors because she was living on the street at that age.

I'm glad to see we're all buddies here.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 8:41:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 6:03:44 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/30/2013 9:45:04 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 5/30/2013 6:44:31 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/30/2013 1:24:33 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/30/2013 1:08:47 AM, YYW wrote:

My advice would be to double major in philosophy and something else. Make yourself employable first, philosophize afterward.

^^ What he said.

He's probably rich enough such that he doesn't need to find a job. His parents let him drop out of high school and supported him/are still supporting him.

royal's parents grew so sick of her that they threw her out early, and now she thinks that 16 year olds aren't minors because she was living on the street at that age.

I'm glad to see we're all buddies here.

^^ What he said.
Tsar of DDO
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 8:53:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 9:45:04 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 5/30/2013 6:44:31 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/30/2013 1:24:33 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/30/2013 1:08:47 AM, YYW wrote:

My advice would be to double major in philosophy and something else. Make yourself employable first, philosophize afterward.

^^ What he said.

He's probably rich enough such that he doesn't need to find a job. His parents let him drop out of high school and supported him/are still supporting him.

royal's parents grew so sick of her that they threw her out early, and now she thinks that 16 year olds aren't minors because she was living on the street at that age.

. I was simply stating a fact-your parents supported your decision to drop out of high school. It was not meant to be an insult. I am sorry that you have a guilty conscience and are upset about your actions, but I did not choose them for you. You have nobody to blame but yourself if you are unhappy with your life because you were clearly not born into poverty. Anybody who travels to Israel multiple times a year clearly is not from a working class family.
Philosophy has one of the highest unemployment rates, and there are very few jobs in academia at the moment.

If you recall the entire point of this thread was to NOT GO TO A PHILOSOPHY COURSE UNLESS IT WAS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.
Ok, and I was simply stating a fact about why philosophy classes are useless.
I'm sorry that knowledge takes a backseat to employment in your little world
It doesn't. I take some of those classes to fulfill requirements. Employment is more important than money because my parents have made it clear that after college, I am on my own. So yes, I am going to do something that is practical instead of wasting my tuition fees and then becoming unemployed or becoming an adjunct professor and living on food stamps and having no medical benefits as part of my job (yes, this is what happens to most humanities PhDs now-they waste their time and money earning a degree so that they can make less than the workers at McDonalds, who are often totally uneducated, do).
, but I'd rather be a pauper who actually understood epistemology
I don't think you have the intellectual forte to understand epistemology. You struggled with middle school algebra (yes, I'm going to say it-Algebra is normally taken by people in 6th, 7th, or 8th grade, not by high school students. This means that the majority of middle school students are more intelligent than you are).

I doubt you will be a pauper. You will continue to have your parents finance your existence.
than a working derp who reads David Hume and thinks that he's
I'm not a "he", and I'm very glad of it.
getting some sort of intellectual preponderance out of it.
At the age you dropped out of high school, Hume was writing philosophical masterpieces.
Also, there happen to be things called "double degrees," but I'm not surprised you haven't heard of it given the college you presumably go to.

We have double majors here. Premed students normally do not pursue them, and most people take two majors that are related to the fields that they are interested in pursuing careers in.
Why don't you go harass Bieber or Cody about it? After all, they were stupid enough to do it themselves.
I don't really care what they do with their lives-that's not my problem. I simply stated a fact-philosophy is not employable and there are few jobs in the humanities that are above the poverty line.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 9:44:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 8:53:29 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/30/2013 9:45:04 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:

but I'd rather be a pauper who actually understood epistemology

I don't think you have the intellectual forte to understand epistemology. You struggled with middle school algebra (yes, I'm going to say it-Algebra is normally taken by people in 6th, 7th, or 8th grade, not by high school students. This means that the majority of middle school students are more intelligent than you are).

You use algebra in epistemology?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 9:48:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 9:44:00 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:53:29 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/30/2013 9:45:04 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:

but I'd rather be a pauper who actually understood epistemology

I don't think you have the intellectual forte to understand epistemology. You struggled with middle school algebra (yes, I'm going to say it-Algebra is normally taken by people in 6th, 7th, or 8th grade, not by high school students. This means that the majority of middle school students are more intelligent than you are).

You use algebra in epistemology?

Well I suppose she's saying that epistemology is harder to understand than algebra. So if you have a lot of trouble with the lower subject than the higher one will be even more trouble to grasp. I would argue that they deal in different domains so it's not really a problem. I don't have too bad a time digging through epistemology but algebra (or any sort of math) is pretty much foreign to me.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 9:53:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 9:44:00 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:53:29 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/30/2013 9:45:04 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:

but I'd rather be a pauper who actually understood epistemology

I don't think you have the intellectual forte to understand epistemology. You struggled with middle school algebra (yes, I'm going to say it-Algebra is normally taken by people in 6th, 7th, or 8th grade, not by high school students. This means that the majority of middle school students are more intelligent than you are).

You use algebra in epistemology?

Algebra requires rudimentary knowledge of abstract concepts. Epistemology requires greater knowledge of abstract concepts.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 9:54:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 9:48:59 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 5/30/2013 9:44:00 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:53:29 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/30/2013 9:45:04 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:

but I'd rather be a pauper who actually understood epistemology

I don't think you have the intellectual forte to understand epistemology. You struggled with middle school algebra (yes, I'm going to say it-Algebra is normally taken by people in 6th, 7th, or 8th grade, not by high school students. This means that the majority of middle school students are more intelligent than you are).

You use algebra in epistemology?

Well I suppose she's saying that epistemology is harder to understand than algebra. So if you have a lot of trouble with the lower subject than the higher one will be even more trouble to grasp. I would argue that they deal in different domains so it's not really a problem. I don't have too bad a time digging through epistemology but algebra (or any sort of math) is pretty much foreign to me.

So there's hope yet.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 9:57:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 9:54:45 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/30/2013 9:48:59 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 5/30/2013 9:44:00 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

You use algebra in epistemology?

Well I suppose she's saying that epistemology is harder to understand than algebra. So if you have a lot of trouble with the lower subject than the higher one will be even more trouble to grasp. I would argue that they deal in different domains so it's not really a problem. I don't have too bad a time digging through epistemology but algebra (or any sort of math) is pretty much foreign to me.

So there's hope yet.

Well it depends. I'm not going to go into what I think though in regards to Mouthwash' case. He already seems a bit sour at me.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 11:47:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I took one philosophy class. I found it boring and pointless. It was a pre-req for Discrete Math so I couldn't avoid it. The professor was boring. He taught us about formal logical fallacies (this is common sense), syllogisms (again common sense), the square of opposition (completely useless), Venn diagrams (intuitive common sense). What a waste of a class.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2013 12:13:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 11:47:30 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I took one philosophy class. I found it boring and pointless. It was a pre-req for Discrete Math so I couldn't avoid it. The professor was boring. He taught us about formal logical fallacies (this is common sense), syllogisms (again common sense), the square of opposition (completely useless), Venn diagrams (intuitive common sense). What a waste of a class.

They called it Philosophy? Not Intro to Logic or Critcal Thinking or something like that?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2013 12:17:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/31/2013 12:13:13 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 5/30/2013 11:47:30 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I took one philosophy class. I found it boring and pointless. It was a pre-req for Discrete Math so I couldn't avoid it. The professor was boring. He taught us about formal logical fallacies (this is common sense), syllogisms (again common sense), the square of opposition (completely useless), Venn diagrams (intuitive common sense). What a waste of a class.

They called it Philosophy? Not Intro to Logic or Critcal Thinking or something like that?

It was intro to Logic but it was PHIL 210 or something like that.
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2013 12:27:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/31/2013 12:17:09 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 5/31/2013 12:13:13 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 5/30/2013 11:47:30 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I took one philosophy class. I found it boring and pointless. It was a pre-req for Discrete Math so I couldn't avoid it. The professor was boring. He taught us about formal logical fallacies (this is common sense), syllogisms (again common sense), the square of opposition (completely useless), Venn diagrams (intuitive common sense). What a waste of a class.

They called it Philosophy? Not Intro to Logic or Critcal Thinking or something like that?

It was intro to Logic but it was PHIL 210 or something like that.

That's a pretty common classification, actually. It was the same where I was an undergrad.
Tsar of DDO