NationStates Jolt Archive

survey time! we seem to be a bunch of over-educated motherfuckers around here, able to talk fairly coherently about a wide range of subjects, including a bunch of philosophy stuff that nobody cares about. so i was wondering, how much philosophy background does NSG have?

I'z leik reelie gud at filsofizing.

Who is in your pic, Free Soviets?

Sun Tzu the art of War. Very useful!

The most fun ones are usually the ones everyone hates. Machiavelli is one of the best examples. Nietzsche was in bad need of hug. Really pal it is alright, everything will be okay.

Who is in your pic, Free Soviets?

my italian alter-ego from 100 years ago

my italian alter-ego from 100 years ago

Gramsci?

personally, a high school teacher of mine got me started on philosophy. which was actually really cool of him, and got me more interested in education than i'd been in years.

I majored in it undergrad, mostly just because it came time to declare a major junior year and I hadn't thought about what I wanted and philosophy is what I happened to have the most courses in. I graduated and found that the want ads were not filled with "Philosopher urgently wanted".

I remember Philosopy. Haven't seen him around in ages.

I haven't studied philosophy much at school, except in its impact on history, but on my own time I do try to be as well-read as possible.

Gramsci?

think more...bakuninian

I tried reading philosophy in high school, but Plato's Republic is a bit daunting on one's own. I actually had my copy of Marx confiscated by a teacher.

I majored in Political Science as an undergrad, with an emphasis on political philosophy. I also took several other philosophy courses.

I also studied Jurisprudence (i.e., the philosophy of law) in law school.

I'm currently trying to reaquaint myself with some of the philosophy I have forgotten by listening to lectures from The Teaching Company.

think more...bakuninian

I'm stumped.

I majored in it undergrad, mostly just because it came time to declare a major junior year and I hadn't thought about what I wanted and philosophy is what I happened to have the most courses in. I graduated and found that the want ads were not filled with "Philosopher urgently wanted".

true. however, philosophy does give a rather valuable skill-set. the trick is getting in the door somewhere.

the wall street journal had a thing about how much various college majors earn (with just the bachelor's degree) a while back. philosophers start in the middle of the 'worthless degree' pack. but ten years later, they rank just below the engineers and such.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-Degrees_that_Pay_you_Back-sort.html

I actually had my copy of Marx confiscated by a teacher.

fucking commie

I've read a few books as a passing interest but its an amazing slog with things like Nietzsche especially if its saying one simple thing but taking ages to say it (philosophy in general)

I have no edumacation *toils in the coal mines*

Nietzsche was in bad need of hug. Really pal it is alright, everything will be okay.

this.

Philosophy is full of moody cunts

I remember Philosopy. Haven't seen him around in ages.

he's been real busy after the filming of The International

EDIT: HS you can say **** again!?
edit2: aww cunts :(

I took a few courses in college and did some reading outside of that. I got my degree in Admin because, using the logic that I was taught in philosphy, I determined that Philosophy degree =/= job. I later discovered that, for all the good the degree in Admin. did me, I might as well have gotten the degree in Philosophy.

I took a few courses in college and did some reading outside of that. I got my degree in Admin because, using the logic that I was taught in philosphy, I determined that Philosophy degree =/= job. I later discovered that, for all the good the degree in Admin. did me, I might as well have gotten the degree in Philosophy.

Plus you can practice at the local pub. After 4 or 5 beer pretty much anything sounds like the meaning of life.

EDIT: HS you can say **** again!?
edit2: aww cunts :(

haha, only plural cunts allowed

haha, only plural cunts allowed

thats a cunting shame :cool:

I took a few courses in college and did some reading outside of that. I got my degree in Admin because, using the logic that I was taught in philosphy, I determined that Philosophy degree =/= job. I later discovered that, for all the good the degree in Admin. did me, I might as well have gotten the degree in Philosophy.

bah. the philosophy skill set is more valuable than the job-training majors - it's more portable and can be applied to anything.

The majority of my BS Poli Sci course work was in theory classes. I suspect no-body will be surprised that my single favorite class was "Constitiutional Design", in which I had to write a constitution and supporting arguments, for a fictional country. :D

Sounds like a BS degree indeed :D

bah. the philosophy skill set is more valuable than the job-training majors - it's more portable and can be applied to anything.

Indeed, indeed.

Indeed, indeed.

and i've got evidence, too

bah. the philosophy skill set is more valuable than the job-training majors - it's more portable and can be applied to anything.

I don't disagree. I have a friend with a Master's in Philosophy. He worked as a research associate in Agronomy at the University of California - he actually applied the skills he learned in Philosophy to research in Botany. Whereas I, with my degree in Admin, ended up as a secretary.

and i've got evidence, too

As do I. And I'll add that my personal experience with the field I'm working in compared with formally trained ed majors does not shine a good light on the state of "education" training as practiced in most English speaking nations....

I don't disagree. I have a friend with a Master's in Philosophy. He worked as a research associate in Agronomy at the University of California - he actually applied the skills he learned in Philosophy to research in Botany. Whereas I, with my degree in Admin, ended up as a secretary.

don't mind me, i'm on a mission to make more people into philosophy majors, or at least minors. presumably, the double major could be a killer combo, actually.

Plus you can practice at the local pub. After 4 or 5 beer pretty much anything sounds like the meaning of life.

in vino veritas

Let me play devil's advocat: If a subject has not even found a way to falsify its claims, it should not be taken seriously or taught as truth in schools.

Let me play devil's advocat: If a subject has not even found a way to falsify its claims, it should not be taken seriously or taught as truth in schools.

That kinda takes out all of the arts, don't it?

Anyway, I'm currently studying philosophy at undergraduate level, with a view to it being my major.

If a subject has not even found a way to falsify its claims, it should not be taken seriously

and how would one go about falsifying that claim?

don't mind me, i'm on a mission to make more people into philosophy majors, or at least minors. presumably, the double major could be a killer combo, actually.
Surprisingly not so much. It's always the other major that's troublesome.

and how would one go about falsifying that claim?

It is its own falsification by logical fallacy.

The majority of my BS Poli Sci course work was in theory classes. I suspect no-body will be surprised that my single favorite class was "Constitiutional Design", in which I had to write a constitution and supporting arguments, for a fictional country. :D

Sounds like it would take a lot of work, but that does sound fun.

*re OP*
why?

and how would one go about falsifying that claim?

*offers FS some money to say that philosophy is useless because I have a full time job*

*re OP*
why?

what is love?

I did the following courses as an undergrad:
- Philosophy of Science
- History of Ethics in the Western Middle Ages
- History & Sociology of Rationality

I have not read a great deal of philosophy; MacIntyre is the author I probably am most familiar with, to a lesser extent Rawls, Nietzsche, Hempel, Aquinas. The randomness of that selection should indicate how fleeting and sporadic my reading has been.

Sun Tzu the art of War. Very useful!

The most fun ones are usually the ones everyone hates. Machiavelli is one of the best examples. Nietzsche was in bad need of hug. Really pal it is alright, everything will be okay.
Meh, I don't know many who hate Machiavelli. Personally, I love him, I just hate people who go on about him having only read The Prince without even attempting to place it in a greater context.
don't mind me, i'm on a mission to make more people into philosophy majors, or at least minors. presumably, the double major could be a killer combo, actually.

Problem with double majoring in philosophy is that it makes you find the single major philosophy students in your class so god damned pretentious. =\

*offers FS some money to say that philosophy is useless because I have a full time job*

scoreboard! (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-Degrees_that_Pay_you_Back-sort.html)

*re OP*
why?

Usually "Why not?", Occasionally "Because!"

As do I. And I'll add that my personal experience with the field I'm working in compared with formally trained ed majors does not shine a good light on the state of "education" training as practiced in most English speaking nations....Those who can't do, teach. And those who can't even teach, teach teachers.

What are the lucrative careers that philosophy majors get into?

scoreboard! (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-Degrees_that_Pay_you_Back-sort.html)

lulz you start out earning the same as a drama student

something fishy is going on here :tongue:

What are the lucrative careers that philosophy majors get into?

They go work down by the old philosophy factory.

What are the lucrative careers that philosophy majors get into?

more or less fucking anything they feel like. because it isn't job training, its a portable skill set of rigorous critical thinking, verbal and written communication, and creativity. which is why you wind up with such a huge range of mid-career salaries - some people decide to go work for non-profits, some people become the ceo's of fortune 500 companies - and it winds up with a fairly high median.

my italian alter-ego from 100 years ago

Who is in your pic, Free Soviets?

Gramsci?

think more...bakuninian

I'm stumped.

Errico Malatesta

think more...bakuninian

Malatesta? (I keep avatars turned off)

Let me play devil's advocat: If a subject has not even found a way to falsify its claims, it should not be taken seriously or taught as truth in schools.

So goodbye to music, art, languages, economics, and anything except the hard sciences?

Naturally, of course, teaching philosophy as truth would be ridiculous. Which is why it isn't done. When teaching about Plato, for example, one can lay out Plato's arguments, further critiques of them, plus points and minus points. Combine this with formal logic, which is very much linked with philosophy, and it might be better considered as a subject concerned with evaluating truth, not teaching it.

Edit: Hmm, beaten by Rambhutan. I also take half hour breaks before posting, so that's my excuse.

About to complete an undergrad Honours in philosophy, applying to do postgrad courses starting this September, with the intention of becoming an impoverished lecturer.

'tis the bomb.


I actually had my copy of Marx confiscated by a teacher.
Egads!

I also studied Jurisprudence (i.e., the philosophy of law) in law school.
I took a wee course of Jurisprudence as an extra a couple of years back. Most enjoyable.

To make a sweeping generalisation, I was rather disappointed by the lack of interest taken in the subject by the 250+ soon-to-be lawyers.

Worrisome, I thought.


the wall street journal had a thing about how much various college majors earn (with just the bachelor's degree) a while back. philosophers start in the middle of the 'worthless degree' pack. but ten years later, they rank just below the engineers and such.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-Degrees_that_Pay_you_Back-sort.html
There's been a big uptake in philosophy in UK schools recently... which is nice.

Linky (http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1927668.0.Huge_rise_in_study_of_philosophy_at_school.php).


Let me play devil's advocat: If a subject has not even found a way to falsify its claims, it should not be taken seriously or taught as truth in schools.
So, only teach the natural science in schools?

And even then, if we follow your (devil's advocate) suggestion strictly, there's a case to be made that maths couldn't be taught. And if we follow that route, then we might as well bring up induction, and argue that, truly, no subject is completely falsifiable, and thus nothing should be taught.

Further, philosophy isn't "taught as truth", or at least, it shouldn't be.

Gramsci?

Nope, that's not Gramsci...
...Gaetano Bresci... neither. Carlo Cafiero, neither. Luigi Luccheni, nope.

Who's that?

I could probably name a few philosophers but I don't know that much about the subject. Id'd like to.. but it's just so huge I wouldn't know where to start..

Nope, that's not Gramsci...
...Gaetano Bresci... neither. Carlo Cafiero, neither. Luigi Luccheni, nope.

Who's that?

Look at my post a couple above you for the answer

Nope, that's not Gramsci...
...Gaetano Bresci... neither. Carlo Cafiero, neither. Luigi Luccheni, nope.

Who's that?

I think we've decided it's Errico Malatesta.

About to complete an undergrad Honours in philosophy, applying to do postgrad courses starting this September, with the intention of becoming an impoverished lecturer.

'tis the bomb.



Egads!


I took a wee course of Jurisprudence as an extra a couple of years back. Most enjoyable.

To make a sweeping generalisation, I was rather disappointed by the lack of interest taken in the subject by the 250+ soon-to-be lawyers.

Worrisome, I thought.



There's been a big uptake in philosophy in UK schools recently... which is nice.

Linky (http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1927668.0.Huge_rise_in_study_of_philosophy_at_school.php).



So, only teach the natural science in schools?

And even then, if we follow your (devil's advocate) suggestion strictly, there's a case to be made that maths couldn't be taught. And if we follow that route, then we might as well bring up induction, and argue that, truly, no subject is completely falsifiable, and thus nothing should be taught.

Further, philosophy isn't "taught as truth", or at least, it shouldn't be.

Um, not much of a case on the mathematics thing. It is perfectly possible to falsify a prediction in mathematics. I may predict that all odd numbers are prime, having noted that 3, 5, and 7 are prime. However, my conjecture falls down when I find a counterexample, such as 9 (subject, of course, to the standard axioms of arithmetic). The key difference is that in mathematics it is also possible to prove a conjecture true beyond all doubt, which is not possible in any other subject (again, with reference to some particular set of axioms).

I am also not quite certain why you referred to induction there, unless it has a special philosophical meaning of which I am not aware.

modules in political philosophy at uni and philosophy in economics (wasn't called that but it may as well have been). best classes during the time i was there, apart from, maybe, economic history. plus some personal reading.

i recommend this book for a great basis for political philosophy http://www.amazon.co.uk/Introduction-Political-Thought-Conceptual-Toolkit/dp/0748616802/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I36U0GZKPNAN2M&colid=1H0XH2J600ARU
it was written by my tutors at uni, which made it a bit cheeky when they made it part of the essential reading list...

Um, not much of a case on the mathematics thing. It is perfectly possible to falsify a prediction in mathematics. I may predict that all odd numbers are prime, having noted that 3, 5, and 7 are prime. However, my conjecture falls down when I find a counterexample, such as 9 (subject, of course, to the standard axioms of arithmetic).
The infinite amount of numbers doesn't help with falsification though; think of something like Goldbach's Conjecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach_conjecture).

The key difference is that in mathematics it is also possible to prove a conjecture true beyond all doubt, which is not possible in any other subject (again, with reference to some particular set of axioms).
But this 'true beyond all doubt' claim is based upon a number of epistemological and metaphysical assumptions that are racked with doubt.

I am also not quite certain why you referred to induction there, unless it has a special philosophical meaning of which I am not aware.
How do I know that a causes b? Because it has done so in the past.

But this is an unfounded assumption.


i recommend this book for a great basis for political philosophy http://www.amazon.co.uk/Introduction-Political-Thought-Conceptual-Toolkit/dp/0748616802/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I36U0GZKPNAN2M&colid=1H0XH2J600ARU
it was written by my tutors at uni, which made it a bit cheeky when they made it part of the essential reading list...
I always liked these (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Political-Philosophy-Fundamentals-Dudley-Knowles/dp/1857285506/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236720157&sr=1-1) two (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Introduction-Political-Philosophy-Jonathan-Wolff/dp/019929609X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236720140&sr=1-1) books, though, like you I may be biased; Prof. Knowles teaches me.

Look at my post a couple above you for the answer

Oy gevalt. Thanks.

How do I know that a causes b? Because it has done so in the past.

But this is an unfounded assumption.


Unfounded, maybe that's a bit drastical. I would call it a reasonable guess.
The very concept of the cause-effect relationship in reality, though, has quite shaky foundations as physics goes.

Philosophy was one of my majors. I considered continuing with it after I had a couple essays published, but I didn't have that sort of money to spend.

I read a couple of books on the subject, and took a course. Unfortunately I remember very little of either. I have some interest in philosophy, but it's mostly another one of those things I'd enjoy doing but only after someone forces me to do it. (I'm not good at working up motivation on my own.)

Unfounded, maybe that's a bit drastical. I would call it a reasonable guess.
Oh quite, we're pretty screwed without the assumption.

But it's still an interesting problem, and a counter to Rejistania's suggestion.

The infinite amount of numbers doesn't help with falsification though; think of something like Goldbach's Conjecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach_conjecture).

Slightly misses the mark. Goldbach's conjecture is falsifiable - a single counterexample is all that it takes to demonstrate it false. This is exactly why it is not considered proven to be true, despite the overwhelming evidence to suggest that is the case. The fact that we have not yet discovered a counterexample does not mean that it isn't falsifiable, just that we haven't yet falsified it. It is still a prediction which is either true or false.

If you like, Goldbach's conjecture is a physicist's hypothesis, and each number represents a test of that hypothesis. All it takes is one counterexample for the physicist's hypothesis to be blown out of the water, and similarly, all it takes is one counterexample for Goldbach's conjecture to be blown out of the water. The only difference is that mathematicians can prove (if they're lucky) that there will be no counterexample, no matter how many repeats you do. The physicist can't even do that.


But this 'true beyond all doubt' claim is based upon a number of epistemological and metaphysical assumptions that are racked with doubt.

Proof is for mathematics and alcohol ... and after enough drinks I'm not even sure about mathematics.

But more seriously, the philosophical foundations of mathematics are quite a different question (although constructivist viewpoints can cause problems for infinity). Despite questions about the philosophical validity of the axioms, we can prove, within the axioms, that a problem is guaranteed to be true, false, or undecidable (bloody Gödel).


How do I know that a causes b? Because it has done so in the past.

But this is an unfounded assumption.

Ah, you were working from a different definition of induction to what I assumed. I default to mathematical induction, which is something subtly different. (The fact I was posting around doing homework on it didn't help)

I finished my philosophy minor last semester, and I'm taking an another class now because I liked that professor (and the course is on Heidegger's Being and Time, so that's great too).
It's fun, I guess. Not that I'm any more equipped to explain my actions or motivations now than before I became all educated and shit.

Slightly misses the mark. Goldbach's conjecture is falsifiable - a single counterexample is all that it takes to demonstrate it false.
Yes, I'm not claiming it isn't.

I'm just noting there's problems associated with the very nature of numbers that cause headaches for those attempting to show this.

But more seriously, the philosophical foundations of mathematics are quite a different question (although constructivist viewpoints can cause problems for infinity).
I don't see how it is a different question. If you're claiming that mathematics is true beyond all doubt, then you're going to show not just mathematical arguments, but epistemological arguments as well. Along with some chat about metaphysics and the ontology of numbers.

Though I take your meaning; true beyond all doubt... in the realm of mathematics.

bloody Gödel
Bloody Gödel indeed.

I'm still trying to recover from dialetheism, and then my flatmate fills my head with all these fucking incompleteness theorems...

I took an undergraduate intro course to help fulfill my generals.

I took an undergraduate intro course to help fulfill my generals.

was it just a quick and dirty overview-type course?

I took enough courses that I could have gotten a minor, but the university was shutting down the philosophy department, and I figured having a Philosophy minor from a university that closed their Philosophy department might be counter-productive.

It was really kind of a bummer. The profs were great and the courses were actually quite thorough.

Sounds like it would take a lot of work, but that does sound fun.

Indeed. :) It was also a very good wrap up of the other course work.

Meh, I don't know many who hate Machiavelli. Personally, I love him, I just hate people who go on about him having only read The Prince without even attempting to place it in a greater context.

Indeed. Machiavelli is rather popular due to the apparent ease of reading compared with most othe political theorists.

Those who can't do, teach. And those who can't even teach, teach teachers.

Heh.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, counsel. Those who can't counsel, administrate. Those who can't administrate, enter data into the computer. Those who can't enter data into the computer, take dictation. Those who can't take dictation, alphabetize files. Those who can't alphabetize files, answer the phone. Those who can't answer the phone, fry hamburgers. Those who can't fry hamburgers, run the cash register. Those who can't run the cash register, wait on tables. Those who can't wait on tables, carry dirty dishes to the kitchen. Those who can't carry dirty dishes to the kitchen, wash the dirty dishes. Those who can't wash dirty dishes, peel potatoes. Those who can't peel potatoes, buff the floor. Those who can't buff the floor, haul out the garbage. Those who can't haul out the garbage, write poetry. Those who can't write poetry, write clever letters to the editor. Those who can't write clever letters to the editor, write angry letters to the editor. Those who can't write angry letters to the editor, spraypaint graffiti. Those who can't spraypaint graffiti, write screenplays. Those who can't write screenplays, write TV scripts. Those who can't write TV scripts, read scripts for the studios. Those who can't read scripts for the studios, act. Those who can't act, take acting classes. Those who can't take acting classes, sing. Those who can't sing, sing Rock'N'Roll. Those who can't sing Rock'N'Roll, sing it anyway. Those who can't sing it anyway, become depressed. Those who can't become depressed, get bitter. Those who can't get bitter, get confused. Those who can't get confused, stay confused. Those who stay confused, find it difficult to complete unfinished sentences. Those who find it difficult to complete unfinished sentences...

School Is Hell by Matt Groening.)

I took a wee course of Jurisprudence as an extra a couple of years back. Most enjoyable.

Agreed. I loved the class and continued my reading of relevant material long afterward.

To make a sweeping generalisation, I was rather disappointed by the lack of interest taken in the subject by the 250+ soon-to-be lawyers.

Worrisome, I thought.

Also agreed. Although some very basic ideas about Jurisprudence were incorporated into some courses (including one required first semester course) in my law school, the exposure of most lawyers to such ideas tends to be very, very limited. Only a handful of students were in my Jurisprudence course. (And I would have enjoyed more than one semester on the subject).

I've taken just a general course in college and also an intro to informal logic class

I've only taken one or two "philosophy" courses. One was math (don't ask, you really don't want to know!). Another one was on military philosophy...good times with Plato, indeed:D

Agreed. I loved the class and continued my reading of relevant material long afterward.
For me, a lot of it crops up in the political philosophy/ethics I'm at home with.

H. L. A. Hart's, Ronald Dworkin's and Thomas Nagel's stuff in particular; though that's no surprise.

Also agreed. Although some very basic ideas about Jurisprudence were incorporated into some courses (including one required first semester course) in my law school, the exposure of most lawyers to such ideas tends to be very, very limited. Only a handful of students were in my Jurisprudence course. (And I would have enjoyed more than one semester on the subject).
I believe the Jurisprudence course is a requirement for law students at my university; it was an course outside my usual Faculty for me.

Most folks on the course didn't seem to give it much heed, or outright hated it. I was one of three non-lawyers doing the course, all of us being philosophers, and we were stuck together in a tutorial class. There seemed to be a good deal of relief from the rest of the tutorial group that there were some students the tutor could focus his (philosophical) attention on.

Again, this is a horrible generalisation -- I'm sure there were plenty students in the class who were interested and engaged in the (vitally important) subject-- but it wasn't very comforting talking to future-lawyers who seemed to have no motivation to critically analyse how their practice was fundamentally handled.

I took enough courses that I could have gotten a minor, but the university was shutting down the philosophy department, and I figured having a Philosophy minor from a university that closed their Philosophy department might be counter-productive.

nah, that just makes it vintage

If you don't enjoy this when stoned .. (http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Chariots%20of%20the%20Gods&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv#)

If you don't enjoy this when stoned .. (http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Chariots%20of%20the%20Gods&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv#)
What has this rather tired nonsense got to do with (academic) philosophy?

In my second year of study and Philosophy will be my major. Good times.

Got in to a large philosophical debate at about 2am while slightly inebriated. It lasted two hours. Topics we discussed:

Where did morality come from?
Are instincts memories of ancestors, just natural biological data or both?
Is intellgence relative?
Is knowledge needed to be intelligent and vice versa.

Man it hurt my brain.

was it just a quick and dirty overview-type course?

You could probably qualify it that way. It was an experimental course that covered introductory topics in philosophy through film. On an unrelated note, I blame that class for my Futurama addiction.

Guess I forgot to mention that I'm in an engineering ethics class right now; does that count as philosophy?

Yes, I'm not claiming it isn't.

I'm just noting there's problems associated with the very nature of numbers that cause headaches for those attempting to show this.

Naturally. But no more than problems associated with the very nature of particle physics that cause headaches for the engineers at CERN, or problems associated with observation at the range of galaxies that cause headaches for astronomers dealing with dark matter. They are problems associated with any research science, not just mathematics.

Hence making a case that mathematics shouldn't be taught on the basis that it's predictions aren't falsifiable would take a bit more work than just that (to tie this back into the original question).


I don't see how it is a different question. If you're claiming that mathematics is true beyond all doubt, then you're going to show not just mathematical arguments, but epistemological arguments as well. Along with some chat about metaphysics and the ontology of numbers.

Though I take your meaning; true beyond all doubt... in the realm of mathematics.

Indeed. Or to play the semantic game slightly more sharply, I don't state that mathematics is true beyond all doubt, I state that mathematical theorems are true beyond all doubt in the system of axioms they are proven in.


Bloody Gödel indeed.

I'm still trying to recover from dialetheism, and then my flatmate fills my head with all these fucking incompleteness theorems...

Even worse from my perspective is that they end up actually happening. The incompleteness theorem isn't just some pathological monstrosity which might exist out there, but will never affect day to day mathematical research. Key principles of mathematics have been shown unprovable (see Axiom of Choice).

What has this rather tired nonsense got to do with (academic) philosophy?

like, whoa man, what if some random nonsense were true?

like, whoa man, what if some random nonsense were true?By definition, nonsense can't be true. :p

Usually "Why not?", Occasionally "Because!"

you have learned well my young Padawan!
;)

I'm doing philosophy GCSE and will be taking it for A levels.

I'm doing philosophy GCSE and will be taking it for A levels.

Cool didn't know they did it for GCSE although I can imagine it being a bit shit.

scoreboard! (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-Degrees_that_Pay_you_Back-sort.html)

I notice Philosophy is the degree with the greatest increase in median income; it more than doubles. My theory is that philosophers, more than any other group, eventually see the futility of their degree and go back to school to become chemical engineers. :wink:

Probably not.

I notice Philosophy is the degree with the greatest increase in median income; it more than doubles. My theory is that philosophers, more than any other group, eventually see the futility of their degree and go back to school to become chemical engineers. :wink:

nah, those ones get ruled out of the study, actually. which is partially why education stays so low - advancement happens mainly through additional education.

more or less fucking anything they feel like. because it isn't job training, its a portable skill set of rigorous critical thinking, verbal and written communication, and creativity. which is why you wind up with such a huge range of mid-career salaries - some people decide to go work for non-profits, some people become the ceo's of fortune 500 companies - and it winds up with a fairly high median.

I wasn't trying to insinuate philosophy degrees are shady btw. I think philosophy is one of the few worthwhile majors out there.

more or less fucking anything they feel like. because it isn't job training, its a portable skill set of rigorous critical thinking, verbal and written communication, and creativity. which is why you wind up with such a huge range of mid-career salaries - some people decide to go work for non-profits, some people become the ceo's of fortune 500 companies - and it winds up with a fairly high median.

What are you doing/thinking of doing at the moment/ after you graduate, career wise btw out of interest?

What are you doing/thinking of doing at the moment/ after you graduate, career wise btw out of interest?

not sure yet - i'm actually pretty well positioned to get a teaching gig if that's the route i want to go. way better than your average philosophy grad, just because of my focus. but i'm also nicely set to get involved in fairly high level policy shit as well, which could be interesting.

failing that, there's always opening a pub.

not sure yet - i'm actually pretty well positioned to get a teaching gig if that's the route i want to go. way better than your average philosophy grad, just because of my focus. but i'm also nicely set to get involved in fairly high level policy shit as well, which could be interesting.

failing that, there's always opening a pub.

Cool. Also, at what level of education are you/will you be at? Undergrad? Masters?

Cool. Also, at what level of education are you/will you be at? Undergrad? Masters?

have the masters, working on the phd

have the masters, working on the phd

Woah dude! So what are you specializing in?

have the masters, working on the phd

Does this mean we have to start calling you "Dr. Soviets?" Or can we stick with your current sobriquet, "Uncle Sovy?"

Does this mean we have to start calling you "Dr. Soviets?

Or Dr. Free? Dr. Freeman? Gordan Freeman? O shi-

The Freeman of philosophy, maybe he'll theorise some existential disruption that ontologically becomes a reality and creates a rift in the concept of 'existence', and then the super secret underground philosophy think tank he works in will be invaded by non existent but also existent at the same time aliens, due to the break down in the law of excluded middle. :eek2:

Or Dr. Free? Dr. Freeman? Gordan Freeman? O shi-

The Freeman of philosophy, maybe he'll theorise some existential disruption that ontologically becomes a reality and creates a rift in the concept of 'existence', and then the super secret underground philosophy think tank he works in will be invaded by non existent but also existent at the same time aliens, due to the break down in the law of excluded middle. :eek2:
I think that was one of Obama's campaign promises, to make sure this doesn't happen. We'll see if he keeps his word.

have the masters, working on the phd
If you dinnie mind, what was your masters thesis?


Cool didn't know they did it for GCSE although I can imagine it being a bit shit.
There's a philosophy Higher up here. It's what got me on to reading any 'proper' philosophy, and to choose doing it at uni.

I truly feel that the skills philosophical education can give you are vital to get around, for want of a better term, in society. Critical thinking, analysis of argument and an ability to link differing concepts from different domains not only help to cut through a lot of the shite that crops up in (personal) life, but are needed if we're to be aware, engaged and fully participating members of political, i.e. human, society. These skills are, obviously, used in all fields of education/academia, and I'm in no way claiming philosophical education as some sort of enlightening salve, but I'm adamant that every child's education should involve basic philosophical 'training'.

It is as important as numeracy or literacy.

These skills are, obviously, used in all fields of education/academia, and I'm in no way claiming philosophical education as some sort of enlightening salve, but I'm adamant that every child's education should involve basic philosophical 'training'.

It is as important as numeracy or literacy.

Ya, I always say this, but I really think philosophy should be required as a minor. Obviously it wouldn't be a minor anymore, at that point, but, at the very least, everyone should be required to take an intro course, a basic logic course, a course in political philosophy and a history of philosophy course (the era overview courses: i.e. Ancient, Medieval [ugh....], Modern, etc.). I'm always shocked by the lack of analytic skills engineers have when it seems like a skill set that would be fundamental to the discipline.

Ya, I always say this, but I really think philosophy should be required as a minor. Obviously it wouldn't be a minor anymore, at that point, but, at the very least, everyone should be required to take an intro course, a basic logic course, a course in political philosophy and a history of philosophy course (the era overview courses: i.e. Ancient, Medieval [ugh....], Modern, etc.).
I'd support further philosophical education at uni/college level, but I think we should be teaching this stuff way earlier. A local council in Scotland's teaching a basic philosophy course for five year-olds; that's more like it.

Philosophical enquiry as a part of education, right from the start, complimenting whatever else we teach, or whatever else pupils choose to study.

I'd support further philosophical education at uni/college level, but I think we should be teaching this stuff way earlier. A local council in Scotland's teaching a basic philosophy course for five year-olds; that's more like it.

Philosophical enquiry as a part of education, right from the start, complimenting whatever else we teach, or whatever else pupils choose to study.

Huh, I wonder what, exactly, they're teaching to five year-olds as part of that. You don't happen to have a link to anything about it, do you?

Woah dude! So what are you specializing in?

environmental philosophy, with significant work in enviro sci and policy

Does this mean we have to start calling you "Dr. Soviets?" Or can we stick with your current sobriquet, "Uncle Sovy?"
you'll call me doctor, just like you call me master now

If you dinnie mind, what was your masters thesis?

it was a sort of conceptual analysis of ecological restoration seeking to clarify what exactly counts, and also a related defense of the moral value of restored landscapes while avoiding the 'despoilation dilemma', where you seemingly have to give up the most promising line of wilderness defense because "it can always be fixed later..."

Huh, I wonder what, exactly, they're teaching to five year-olds as part of that. You don't happen to have a link to anything about it, do you?
Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6330631.stm) is a BBC story about the initiative, and you can read a wee, rather positive, study on the initiative here (http://www.ep.liu.se/ecp/021/vol1/026/ecp2107026.pdf) (.pdf).

environmental philosophy, with significant work in enviro sci and policy...

it was a sort of conceptual analysis of ecological restoration seeking to clarify what exactly counts, and also a related defense of the moral value of restored landscapes while avoiding the 'despoilation dilemma', where you seemingly have to give up the most promising line of wilderness defense because "it can always be fixed later..."
Kewel.

I studied environmental ethics this year, really interested in going further with it. I want to investigate a synthesis of Bookchinite social ecology with neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics, influenced by Philippa Foot and Rosalind Hursthouse's 'natural goodness' theory (he said, sounding like the biggest philosophy geek ever).

Lets see if I get my postgrad applications accepted first though...

Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6330631.stm) is a BBC story about the initiative, and you can read a wee, rather positive, study on the initiative here (http://www.ep.liu.se/ecp/021/vol1/026/ecp2107026.pdf) (.pdf).
Cool deal, thanks. Will take a look at it in a bit or in between doing work on this paper. One other advantage of philosophy...you will learn to write relatively large, convincing papers on topics that you neither have immediate interest in or familiarity with (usually due to lack of keeping up on the assignments) the night, if not the few hours, before they are due.

Now back to brainpooping out this stupid paper on Hegel and the evolution of the world spirit. *sigh* German philosophers make me want to draw a warm bath and grab a sharp knife. o.O

Now back to brainpooping out this stupid paper on Hegel and the evolution of the world spirit. *sigh* German philosophers make me want to draw a warm bath and grab a sharp knife. o.O
I shit you not: I have a paper on Hegel and punishment due in on Monday. (Once you get onto abstract right, I find Hegel gets suddenly very interesting.)

Probably should be asleep.

I shit you not: I have a paper on Hegel and punishment due in on Monday. (Once you get onto abstract right, I find Hegel gets suddenly very interesting.)

Probably should be asleep.

I'm sure he would be, but this is my last semester and I'm kind of burnt out on academic philosophical pursuits, at this point. It's also that this class is giving me flashbacks to my class on Schleiermacher. I fucking hated Schleiermacher. Hegel is approachable and, really, not as complicated as he's often hyped up to be. Schleiermacher is absolute gibberish.

The philosophy department of Purdue is also kind of a problem. It is set up in such a way that you get very little chance to explore your own philosophic interests. I have yet to have a single class that covers Spinoza. An entire undergraduate career of philosophy and not a single class addresses one of the foundational figures for European Enlightenment philosophy. I still don't understand this.

I've taken an overview class of philosophy and been "tutored" (met with my prof 1 on 1) for a couple of years now to discuss books we've gone over - Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Descartes, On Certainty, etc. I am familiar with many philosophical problems though I haven't personally dealt with some of them. Most of my reading has been confined to Hume, Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein, Bouwsma, Plato, Aristotle, Tarski and Russel.

Lets see if I get my postgrad applications accepted first though...

where did you apply?

where did you apply?
Glasgow, Edinburgh, St. Andrews, Sheffield, Reading and UCL.

Cool didn't know they did it for GCSE although I can imagine it being a bit shit.

Not really, It would be better though if my class was not a bunch of ignorant idiots and it does not help that the only half way competent member hates my guts and therefore when it comes to debates they always slag me off instead of arguing reasonably. *sigh*

I also studied Jurisprudence (i.e., the philosophy of law) in law school. Bah. I hate jurisprudence.

I took an undergrad philosophy survey course. I hated it. I'd had all those weird thoughts while smoking pot and doing mushrooms...and our prof wanted us to think about it while straight? Fugedaboudit.

So not much formal study for me. I come across all sorts of philsophies just in my average life, in novels, conversations with others, or what have you. I don't need to know the difference between Hegelian dialectics and some other fucking european dude's opinion on life, the universe and everything.

Ive had several philosophy classes in college, however few of them were in the philosophy department and they mostly came in the form of political theory.
Bah. I hate jurisprudence.
I havent started this yet, but Im kinda looking foward to it.

I've read some books, but those books are all fiction. Like L'étranger or En Attendant Godot or God Emperor of Dune. And I took a community college level intro course.

I've argued with several philosophy students. That probably counts more than anything else. But I've never seriously studied it, as I tend to approach things from another direction. Philosophy is somewhat abstract for me.

...dialetheism...

See, when you start talking like this, it's hard to see how you could get any more abstract.

Indeed. Machiavelli is rather popular due to the apparent ease of reading compared with most othe political theorists.
...

School Is Hell by Matt Groening.)

But The Prince is such a tiny book that it's easy to carry around and impress the chix.

And you don't even have to really read it. Just imagine being the world's biggest political asshole, and you can convince all the people who also haven't read it. In that respect, it's even better than the other little prince book, Le Petit Prince, because you have to actually have to have read that book to use it to impress people. Extra points if you do it in French.

...

I truly feel that the skills philosophical education can give you are vital to get around, for want of a better term, in society. Critical thinking, analysis of argument and an ability to link differing concepts from different domains not only help to cut through a lot of the shite that crops up in (personal) life, but are needed if we're to be aware, engaged and fully participating members of political, i.e. human, society. These skills are, obviously, used in all fields of education/academia, and I'm in no way claiming philosophical education as some sort of enlightening salve, but I'm adamant that every child's education should involve basic philosophical 'training'.

It is as important as numeracy or literacy.

But you wouldn't have to use philosophy. You could use any comprehensive discipline that focuses on real time problem solving, like parcours or ecology or architecture. Anything where you have to take a global view of things across many fields of study and then apply the results to chaotic and local problems, and you then can view the actual results of your decisions because they've been tested in reality.

I havent started this yet, but Im kinda looking foward to it.

Oh yeah, because lawyers are so damn philosophical.

Philosophy is somewhat abstract for me.
A lot of philosophy is abstract, but a lot of it is inherently practical.

See, when you start talking like this, it's hard to see how you could get any more abstract.
I'd disagree, there's (perhaps unwise) use of jargon, but the notion of truth and how we understand statements seems vary much non-abstract to me.

But you wouldn't have to use philosophy.
No, but I think it's best that we do.

Concentrate studies on philosophical techniques themselves, not relying on them being picked up while we focus on something else.


Oh yeah, because lawyers are so damn philosophical.
They're often not, no.

But jurisprudes are.

But you wouldn't have to use philosophy. You could use any comprehensive discipline that focuses on real time problem solving, like parcours or ecology or architecture. Anything where you have to take a global view of things across many fields of study and then apply the results to chaotic and local problems, and you then can view the actual results of your decisions because they've been tested in reality.

Amen.

The idea of thinking, really hard, about the purely abstract....bores me to tears.

Perhaps this is why I enjoyed Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance much more than Plato's Republic.

But jurisprudes are.

I've actually had to take a number of jurisprudence classes, and have been utterly disappointed by the level of critical thinking displayed by my classmates. Colour me unimpressed.

Oh yeah, because lawyers are so damn philosophical.

Nah, its more the fact that its philosophy that might actually be relevent to me, as opposed to all that "what is real?" crap.

Amen.

The idea of thinking, really hard, about the purely abstract....bores me to tears.

Perhaps this is why I enjoyed Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance much more than Plato's Republic.

I really hated reading Plato's Republic. I still love philosophy.

I really hated reading Plato's Republic.

Erm...


Die.

The idea of thinking, really hard, about the purely abstract....bores me to tears.

Perhaps this is why I enjoyed Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance much more than Plato's Republic.
Once again, I'd contend that philosophy is 'purely abstract'.

Republic is a discussion on the best political system to live in and the nature of the world around us.

How is that abstract?

I've actually had to take a number of jurisprudence classes, and have been utterly disappointed by the level of critical thinking displayed by my classmates. Colour me unimpressed.
And your lecturers?

As I was saying to Cat Tribe above, jurisprudence classes are usually stuffed with uninterested law students, but that doesn't detract from the fact that jurisprudence, legal theory, is highly philosophical.

Erm...


Die.

:p I really respect Plato and find much of his work very interesting. But the book itself was just a difficult read for me, perhaps it was something to do with the English translation.

Once again, I'd contend that philosophy is 'purely abstract'.

Republic is a discussion on the best political system to live in. How is that abstract?

:rolleyes:

Of all the abstractions, the 'best political system to live in' is pretty much on the top of the list.

:rolleyes:

Of all the abstractions, the 'best political system to live in' is pretty much on the top of the list.

So why do you even come to NSG? Because the majority of the debate is concerned with this.

So why do you even come to NSG?

For me.

For me.

But do you really exist? :p

Of all the abstractions, the 'best political system to live in' is pretty much on the top of the list.
Then you and I would seem to disagree on what the nature of 'abstract' is, for I see nothing less abstract than an involved discussion of how ones life is run, how it could be improved, and what problems society faces that can be overcome.

But you wouldn't have to use philosophy. You could use any comprehensive discipline that focuses on real time problem solving, like parcours or ecology or architecture. Anything where you have to take a global view of things across many fields of study and then apply the results to chaotic and local problems, and you then can view the actual results of your decisions because they've been tested in reality.

as far as i can tell, it really does have to be specifically philosophical training. everything else winds up developing and requiring very field-specific methods, while the philosophical toolkit is the ultimate groundwork for all of it.

as far as i can tell, it really does have to be specifically philosophical training. everything else winds up developing and requiring very field-specific methods, while the philosophical toolkit is the ultimate groundwork for all of it.

True, when philosophy was first developing it included what we would call today: Mathematics, Theology, Physics, Psychology, Medicine, Sociology, Chemistry, Political Science, History, Linguistics, and Economics. It has been only since the Scientific Revolution that those differentiations developed. As time went on they developed their own distinct methodologies from the methods of philosophy. Thus I agree it is the foundation for all further knowledge.

A lot of philosophy is abstract, but a lot of it is inherently practical.

Some of it has practical applications. Some of it does not.

I'd disagree, there's (perhaps unwise) use of jargon, but the notion of truth and how we understand statements seems vary much non-abstract to me.

Let's use dialetheism as an example. I started reading about it and my gut told me that it's possible. Just becuase my practical experience has shown me that sometimes something and its opposite seem to be true, like a koan. Now, you can probably sit there and go through the logic and show how it's not really contradictory, but on a practical day to day level, people don't do that. They just live with the contradiction. Or they make a weird mental leap into a new headspace that sees beyond the contradiction, like koans are supposed to do.

And it seems to me that philosophy is about if A and -A are both apparently true and whether or not the strnegthened Liar paradox is a true example of the parawhatever. Which is not really encountered in day to day life.

No, but I think it's best that we do.

Concentrate studies on philosophical techniques themselves, not relying on them being picked up while we focus on something else.

But without applying them in real situations, we can't decide which are the most useful, or even if they work at all. And unless you can think of some way of directly applying philosophy, we have to work with other disciplines.

as far as i can tell, it really does have to be specifically philosophical training. everything else winds up developing and requiring very field-specific methods, while the philosophical toolkit is the ultimate groundwork for all of it.

Which is why I specifically mentioned a multi-dsiciplinary approach. Solutions to our problems with our relationship to our ecology have to take into account all the different life sciences, including those dealing solely with human biology, like medicine, while laso understanding how things like industrial design and modern transportation engineering must be manipulated in order to achieve long term sustainability. The people who end up solving these problems are not working solely in their field. While a philosophy training might help in that context, I don't think it is indispensable, or would necessarily lead to the type(s) of minds required for such problem solving.

Some of it has practical applications. Some of it does not.
I'd agree, though I'd maintain that very little of it is 'purely abstract'.

Let's use dialetheism as an example. I started reading about it and my gut told me that it's possible. Just becuase my practical experience has shown me that sometimes something and its opposite seem to be true, like a koan. Now, you can probably sit there and go through the logic and show how it's not really contradictory, but on a practical day to day level, people don't do that.
Most logicians don't do that!

And it seems to me that philosophy is about if A and -A are both apparently true and whether or not the strnegthened Liar paradox is a true example of the parawhatever. Which is not really encountered in day to day life.
This sort of discussion might not be encountered in day to day life, but the application most certainly is, as attested by yourself. Thus, I see the discussion of something that affects us in day to day life as non-abstract.

But without applying them in real situations, we can't decide which are the most useful, or even if they work at all. And unless you can think of some way of directly applying philosophy, we have to work with other disciplines.
Applied ethics is just one example of this, as is the cross-departmental work done by philosophers and many, many fields of of work.

Moreover, the philosophical training of children is all about applying the skills in "real situations"; interpersonal relationships, public life, political action, etc.

While a philosophy training might help in that context, I don't think it is indispensable, or would necessarily lead to the type(s) of minds required for such problem solving.
I'd say that any ecologist who hasn't a clear understanding of the philosophical basis of their ecological action lacks something vital. All the knowledge of technology, engineering, etc., in the world is rather useless towards developing coherent ecological principles/policy/action if we don't have a good understanding of the philosophical underpinnings.

What ecological beings 'count'? Do we have duties only to ourselves or to future persons? Are ecologies in themselves valuable? Do rights trump happiness? Can we achieve meaningful ecological change merely through policy change?

All these questions, and far more, are tackled by philosophy, and should be of prime importance to ecologists

I'd agree, though I'd maintain that very little of it is 'purely abstract'.

Most logicians don't do that!

This sort of discussion might not be encountered in day to day life, but the application most certainly is, as attested by yourself. Thus, I see the discussion of something that affects us in day to day life as non-abstract.

Part of the problem is that I'm arguing from a position of ignorance. I sit here and I tell you that I don't see I how it is practical. But a large part of that is that I don't know much about philosophy. You see it from within philosophy, so you can see how it can be applied and how it is applied.

So, even if someone is applying philosophy on a practical level, I wouldn't perhaps know it. But I do see people using complex problem solving skills to deal with complex problems, and I know they didn't pick it up from a philosophy course.

Applied ethics is just one example of this, as is the cross-departmental work done by philosophers and many, many fields of of work.

Moreover, the philosophical training of children is all about applying the skills in "real situations"; interpersonal relationships, public life, political action, etc.

I get the feeling that we are saying similar things here.

I'd say that any ecologist who hasn't a clear understanding of the philosophical basis of their ecological action lacks something vital. All the knowledge of technology, engineering, etc., in the world is rather useless towards developing coherent ecological principles/policy/action if we don't have a good understanding of the philosophical underpinnings.

What ecological beings 'count'? Do we have duties only to ourselves or to future persons? Are ecologies in themselves valuable? Do rights trump happiness? Can we achieve meaningful ecological change merely through policy change?

All these questions, and far more, are tackled by philosophy, and should be of prime importance to ecologists

But the underpinnings aren't totally necessary. As a parent, I can answer many of these questions simply and easily, and resolve them with a criteria that every other parent would accept. Philosophy would not provide such a simple and practical method at arriving at answers. Point being that the questions, and their answers, arise anyways even without formal philosophical study.

I should have my head examined. Arguing philosophy with philosophy students. How impractical! Ha!

I should have my head examined. Arguing philosophy with philosophy students. How impractical! Ha!

:D:p

But to appeal to a skeptical audience one must appeal to their sense of morality, logic, and emotions to convince the audience to take concrete action. Philosophy helps one understand what moral underpinnings an audience may have so as to be most convincing.

Take me for instance, in order to convince me something is moral or immoral, one must assume, for a moment, that I am justified in believing in God and consider the Bible a valid basis for morality. From there one would have to show the theological justification for the action. If I am not convinced, then the next step is to go after my ideology, communitarianism w/ participatory economics, and explain how it preserves the balance between rights and responsibilities needed for a functioning society, and how it fits with the egalitarian model of Parecon. That is what it would take for someone to fully convince me concerning a course of action that is controversial that I may not agree with.

But beyond proving that it is moral to do so, one must show why it is necessary. This is where formal logic and facts come into play. (see also NSG:D)

As for emotional, that can have a powerful effect on people, if the speaker is physically present, otherwise it is not enough. Philosophy teaches one how to do all this, I believe. However I have not taken much philosophy, so I might be missing the mark. If I am, just ignore everything I just said.

survey time! we seem to be a bunch of over-educated motherfuckers around here, able to talk fairly coherently about a wide range of subjects, including a bunch of philosophy stuff that nobody cares about. so i was wondering, how much philosophy background does NSG have?

One of my majors was in philosophy. In all honesty, I took philosophy classes because they let me get course credit for the kind of debates that I was having in the dorm lounge anyhow.

So, even if someone is applying philosophy on a practical level, I wouldn't perhaps know it. But I do see people using complex problem solving skills to deal with complex problems, and I know they didn't pick it up from a philosophy course.
Again, I'm not saying that all problem-solving or critical analysis skills solely come from philosophy, and I recognise your unfamiliarity of the subject, but philosophical education from a young age would encourage, to a much higher degree, use of such faculties. In the same way, numeracy can be picked up through other subjects without having a dedicated class on the subject, but I wouldn't want to rely on that method.

As I said above, I fully agree that these skills can be picked up through other disciplines. But I wouldn't want to rely on this happening, for it often doesn't, and I think a dedicated education on these subjects is (more than) desirable.

As a parent, I can answer many of these questions simply and easily, and resolve them with a criteria that every other parent would accept.
To be blunt, many parents aren't as enlightened as perhaps you are. I'm very wary of attesting to some 'parent-sense'; more so relying on it.

I should have my head examined. Arguing philosophy with philosophy students. How impractical! Ha!
Metaphilosophy is fun.

Again, I'm not saying that all problem-solving or critical analysis skills solely come from philosophy, and I recognise your unfamiliarity of the subject, but philosophical education from a young age would encourage, to a much higher degree, use of such faculties. In the same way, numeracy can be picked up through other subjects without having a dedicated class on the subject, but I wouldn't want to rely on that method.

this is exactly the right line, i think. you probably could come to understand numbers through something like economics, but it gets the order wrong and hinders the learning of both. of course, our present system does even worse when it comes to the philosophical intellectual toolkit - it's more like the equivalent of trying to learn math by engaging in market transactions affecting your life.

as far as i can tell, it really does have to be specifically philosophical training. everything else winds up developing and requiring very field-specific methods, while the philosophical toolkit is the ultimate groundwork for all of it.
I'm picturing a bunch of sweaty men in desks, eyes squeezed shut through concentration. Every once in a while the teacher comes by and slaps someone for solipsism.
I know you've talked in general what a philosophy degree requires, but what specific things do you do in "philosophical training?" Are there books you have to read, problems you have to explain?

I'm picturing a bunch of sweaty men in desks, eyes squeezed shut through concentration. Every once in a while the teacher comes by and slaps someone for solipsism.
I know you've talked in general what a philosophy degree requires, but what specific things do you do in "philosophical training?" Are there books you have to read, problems you have to explain?

the way we do it now involves a philosophical cannon - everybody has to know how the conversation has gone for the past 2500 years. This is only sorta necessary; good for making philosophers, but probably not so much for general intellectual development we're talking about here.

when you get down to it, the basics are really tied up in things like identifying and understanding arguments from a variety of sources, knowing how logic works and how to evaluate arguments and claims, making and defending your own arguments, and developing a set of mental habits like intellectual curiosity and a willingness to question everything. the process of doing all that covers a huge range of intellectual ground and shows how aspects of one domain dramatically affect other domains, leading to questioning domain-specific assumptions that one might not notice if you learn to think critically in a more context-dependent manner. oh, and there is the generalized process of not just learning to think for yourself, but to think with others. at higher levels that comes out in specific practice with communicating arguments to others and handling the counterarguments that come back at you.

i'm sure i missed some points that bear mentioning, but that strikes me as the core of philosophical training

I'm picturing a bunch of sweaty men in desks, eyes squeezed shut through concentration. Every once in a while the teacher comes by and slaps someone for solipsism.
I like it!

I know you've talked in general what a philosophy degree requires, but what specific things do you do in "philosophical training?" Are there books you have to read, problems you have to explain?
The initiative by Clackmannanshire Council, which you can read about here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6330631.stm), seems on the right track.

Get kids used to discussion; use stories to get them thinking critically about issues; have the teacher step back from lecturing and get them to be more of a chair of a debate; ultimately giving the kids the confidence and skills to make 'informed choices', to not just store information, but to process and critique it.

Older kids would look at basic argument analysis and elementary logic, to foster the open-mindedness that should be the basis of any education.

I just wrote a big research paper today for College about Realism, Neorealism, Liberalism, and Neoliberalism...

Im very interested in Smith, Locke, Jefferson, Franklin, Chomsky...

formal phylosophical studies are less pertinent then a willingness to observe, a desire to do so objectively, and to avoid both those self deceptions which are popular or perpetuated by enculturation, and those which are knee jerk opposition to them. to be able to devorce one's self from both, step away from them all, and observe instead, what is actually there, the realities of its functionality.

many claim to do this with major axes to grind.
well i do have a negative reaction to what people have for a long time had an attatchment to assuming, what that has done and is continuing to do, to the kind of world we all have to live in.

perhapse it is sufficient that i leave it there, but i simply do not see personalities, however remarkable their wisedom may have gained a reputation to be, have bugger all to do with it.

formal phylosophical studies are less pertinent then a willingness to observe, a desire to do so objectively, and to avoid both those self deceptions which are popular or perpetuated by enculturation, and those which are knee jerk opposition to them. to be able to devorce one's self from both, step away from them all, and observe instead, what is actually there, the realities of its functionality.

willingness and desire are not enough. this shit is hard to do and requires teaching. or at least formalized effort, which most people aren't going to give it on their own.

...

As I said above, I fully agree that these skills can be picked up through other disciplines. But I wouldn't want to rely on this happening, for it often doesn't, and I think a dedicated education on these subjects is (more than) desirable.


To be blunt, many parents aren't as enlightened as perhaps you are. I'm very wary of attesting to some 'parent-sense'; more so relying on it.


Metaphilosophy is fun.

If a dedicated education can be shown to cement the skillset into children, as your link seems to suggest, I'm fine with that. Obviously, the courses for children would have to be more 'practical' than the formal philosophy courses taken by all my friends who, to put it bluntly, work for tips.

The parent thing is simpler than you perhaps imagine. Parents immediately understand that we have duties not only to ourselves but also to future persons, i.e. our kids. Then ecologies become valuable because our kids need them to be alive, and so the ecological beings that are part of that kid-sustaining system are important. They also count. This is simply based on the fact that I don't want my children to grow up somewhere that will make them sick. Simple, isn't it?

willingness and desire are not enough. this shit is hard to do and requires teaching. or at least formalized effort, which most people aren't going to give it on their own.

And yet, people still do it. At one point, we had no philosophers, and now we do. So that means that at one point, people without formal training started asking the questions. However, having someone show you a more formalised method can speed up the learning process.

And yet, people still do it. At one point, we had no philosophers, and now we do. So that means that at one point, people without formal training started asking the questions.

and that very history is how we know that the self-driven path isn't enough to accomplish the goal of equipping people in general with the supremely valuable intellectual toolkit of philosophy. just as that same history shows that trusting in the immediate understanding of parents is not really all its cut out to be.

and that very history is how we know that the self-driven path isn't enough to accomplish the goal of equipping people in general with the supremely valuable intellectual toolkit of philosophy.

That's a very lofty goal. I was just kinda hoping for having a higher percentage of critical thinkers.

... just as that same history shows that trusting in the immediate understanding of parents is not really all its cut out to be.

I'm not so sure about that. I don't think we've had a time in history when we really did trust in the immediate understanding of parents. Just as we've never had a time when we really trusted in the philopshical toolkit. So you're just speculating, really.

That's a very lofty goal. I was just kinda hoping for having a higher percentage of critical thinkers.

presumably we don't lose anything important by increasing the percentage of critical thinkers by a bit more, right on up to 100%. so we might as well aim high, even if we can't really get there.

If a dedicated education can be shown to cement the skillset into children, as your link seems to suggest, I'm fine with that. Obviously, the courses for children would have to be more 'practical' than the formal philosophy courses taken by all my friends who, to put it bluntly, work for tips.
Aye, I'm not suggeting that 5 year-olds should have a dedicated class on British Empiricism, or anything like that. There's two issues here, the teaching of a 'philosophical skillset' to young kids, something that should be a requirement in schools, and increased philosophical education in schools; an encouraged but optional, more formal, philosophical education, aimed at high-school aged kids, perhaps.

The parent thing is simpler than you perhaps imagine. Parents immediately understand that we have duties not only to ourselves but also to future persons, i.e. our kids.
Two points.

Firstly, I think you're being too generous to the parents of this planet. The vast majority of parents, I'm sure, understand the duties that children place on them, but parenthood does not, unfortunately, automatically equate to an understanding of a parent's duty, etc.

Secondly, by 'future persons', I mean those who do not yet exist, sometimes those in the far future; not our children, who do exist.

Then ecologies become valuable because our kids need them to be alive, and so the ecological beings that are part of that kid-sustaining system are important. They also count. This is simply based on the fact that I don't want my children to grow up somewhere that will make them sick. Simple, isn't it?
Simple, yes, but not universally taken as truth, and not universally understood. Furthermore, there's a number of issues that arrise from your assertion: do these 'ecological beings' count as much as your kids? Do they include trees, mountains, etc.? Does the ecology itself count, and if so, for how much?

Greater than this, we're stepping into consequentialist territory here, and there's a whole bunch of enviromental ethics that place less emphasis on what 'counts' and what doesn't; virtue-based environmental ethics, for example.

Though these issues are off-topic, the very fact we're discussing them shows that philosophy underpins ecological policy/practice.

However, having someone show you a more formalised method can speed up the learning process.
Exactly the point.

To be quite honest, I don't see a whole lot of disagreement between us on this whole issue.

Aye, I'm not suggeting that 5 year-olds should have a dedicated class on British Empiricism, or anything like that.

but i think i'll start

but i think i'll start
Spot the Dog and the Missing Shade of Blue.

I could see that...

...

Two points.

Firstly, I think you're being too generous to the parents of this planet. The vast majority of parents, I'm sure, understand the duties that children place on them, but parenthood does not, unfortunately, automatically equate to an understanding of a parent's duty, etc.

I'm not saying it does. I'm saying that it's easy to frame an ecological awareness without getting into anything deeper than a parent's instinctive duty to their own children. I don't need philosophy to explain why composting is important.

Secondly, by 'future persons', I mean those who do not yet exist, sometimes those in the far future; not our children, who do exist.

The difference is not whether or not they are alive right now. It's more of a question as to whether or not we humanise them, isn't it? If we do, then they will matter, and if we don't humanise them, then they won't matter. Now, which do you think would be a more successful approach to humanising them: a philosophical approach, or an appeal to the parenting instinct? Obviously, the correct answer is neither. The more successful approach would be the one that uses both.

To be honest, I have trouble going beyond seven generations into the future. I'm still training my brain to think in the long term.

Simple, yes, but not universally taken as truth, and not universally understood.

But almost universally accessible to those of us who have bred.

Furthermore, there's a number of issues that arrise from your assertion: do these 'ecological beings' count as much as your kids? Do they include trees, mountains, etc.? Does the ecology itself count, and if so, for how much?

Greater than this, we're stepping into consequentialist territory here, and there's a whole bunch of enviromental ethics that place less emphasis on what 'counts' and what doesn't; virtue-based environmental ethics, for example.

Yes, but they're philosophical issues. I think that because we're having a meta-argument about meta-philosophy, I can just meta-ignore them by falling back on the 'practical' viewpoint that 'if my kids need them, then we have to have them'.

Though these issues are off-topic, the very fact we're discussing them shows that philosophy underpins ecological policy/practice.

Exactly the point.

This is apparent if you've ever taught yourself something and it took days, then taught somebody else how to do it and they pick it up in minutes. The student benefits from the autodidact's mistakes.

To be quite honest, I don't see a whole lot of disagreement between us on this whole issue.

Don't look at me. I'm making an effort to find discord.

Yes, but they're philosophical issues. I think that because we're having a meta-argument about meta-philosophy, I can just meta-ignore them by falling back on the 'practical' viewpoint that 'if my kids need them, then we have to have them'.
A broadly admirable standpoint.

The student benefits from the autodidact's mistakes.
Well said.

Don't look at me. I'm making an effort to find discord.
You wee bugger, you.

*snip*

*snip*
Huh, for two "intelligent" people, you were both incredibly willing to give me information I would normally pay at least $20,000 for for free. I'm taking this knowledge to the bank, suckers! :p

Seriously though, thanks for both posts. I don't think I will as far with the subject as either of you, but philosophy sounds like a minor (or second major) that would benefit anyone planning to stay in academia. Tunnel vision seems to be very real risk working in an institution like an university; I imagine a subject that purports to teaching questioning and critical thinking would be very useful.

Huh, for two "intelligent" people, you were both incredibly willing to give me information I would normally pay at least $20,000 for for free. I'm taking this knowledge to the bank, suckers! :p
Bugger.

Undercutting my own career before I even start it.

Tunnel vision seems to be very real risk working in an institution like an university; I imagine a subject that purports to teaching questioning and critical thinking would be very useful.
Just make sure you skip all the classes in which Kant gets mentioned. I once again made the mistake of trying to understand what people like about the guy.

Reading the stuff just makes you sleepy, but understanding what he's actually saying makes me curl up into a little ball and crawl into a corner. Most twisted man in history? He's got a good shot at the title.

Just make sure you skip all the classes in which Kant gets mentioned. I once again made the mistake of trying to understand what people like about the guy.

Reading the stuff just makes you sleepy, but understanding what he's actually saying makes me curl up into a little ball and crawl into a corner. Most twisted man in history? He's got a good shot at the title.

whut?

Just make sure you skip all the classes in which Kant gets mentioned.
And miss out on one of the most important ethicists and metaphysicians in Western philosophical thought?

No thank you.

Reading the stuff just makes you sleepy, but understanding what he's actually saying makes me curl up into a little ball and crawl into a corner. Most twisted man in history? He's got a good shot at the title.
He's idea of 'valid' motivations for moral action is way off, but 'most twisted man in history'?

What do you mean?

He's idea of 'valid' motivations for moral action is way off, but 'most twisted man in history'?

What do you mean?

i would like to see an answer to this as well

i would like to see an answer to this as well

This might help:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=586874

I absolutely hate philosophy of the traditional sort, but political philosophy is one of my favorite subjects in psci, so I guess that counts.

This might help:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=586874

ooh, thanks. though the mystery of what gives kant any sort of a chance at winning the medal for most twisted man in history remains.

Just make sure you skip all the classes in which Kant gets mentioned. I once again made the mistake of trying to understand what people like about the guy.

Reading the stuff just makes you sleepy, but understanding what he's actually saying makes me curl up into a little ball and crawl into a corner. Most twisted man in history? He's got a good shot at the title.

ROFLMAO.

Being a rather adamant Kantian, can I be, say, the second most twisted man in history?

Edit: Technically I suppose we should probably give it to someone more prominent... but come on, surely all my arguments on NSG count for something?

I absolutely hate philosophy of the traditional sort, but political philosophy is one of my favorite subjects in psci, so I guess that counts.

how is political philosophy not a traditional sort of philosophy?

Edit: Technically I suppose we should probably give it to someone more prominent... but come on, surely all my arguments on NSG count for something?

Well, no. Not really. :)

That kinda takes out all of the arts, don't it?

Anyway, I'm currently studying philosophy at undergraduate level, with a view to it being my major.

Indeed. Arts should be a hobby, not a subject.

and how would one go about falsifying that claim?
By showing benefits of subjective beliefs which outweight their problems.

Sun Tzu the art of War. Very useful!

Nietzsche was in bad need of hug. Really pal it is alright, everything will be okay.


This is a common misconception of Nietzsche, his style of writing did not give the reader the literal version. His works, at times, had a strong sense of irony to them. He was not the adolescent, hate-filled person most think he was.

how is political philosophy not a traditional sort of philosophy?

Is Heraclitus's "the people must fight on behalf of the law as though for the city wall" the first instance of political philosophy?

I tried reading philosophy in high school, but Plato's Republic is a bit daunting on one's own. I actually had my copy of Marx confiscated by a teacher.

Did they confiscate it because you weren't paying attention in class, or because it was communist? If the latter, depending on where you lived, you could probably have sued their ass.

Is Heraclitus's "the people must fight on behalf of the law as though for the city wall" the first instance of political philosophy?

I suspect that the first instance of political philosophy was far less pompous.

*cue flashback sequence*

[Narrator: We find ourselves in a pastoral environment, observing man in his early attempts at political philosophy.]

"Cob not like you tell what to do! Cob can do what Cob want!"

"Brog see Cob member of tribe. Member of tribe make fire. Cob make fire."

Did they confiscate it because you weren't paying attention in class, or because it was communist? If the latter, depending on where you lived, you could probably have sued their ass.

Definitely the latter.

In theory, I could have sued that school district for copious violations of my rights. That is not always a practical option, however.

I did get my copy back after I complained to the school administration and threatened to write an editorial in the student paper about the incident.

Is Heraclitus's "the people must fight on behalf of the law as though for the city wall" the first instance of political philosophy?

i'm not so sure about his stance on the law as the will of one, but i do approve of his ephesian policy