
Why I Majored in Philosophy Despite Everyone Telling Me Not To (2013) - pmoriarty
https://mic.com/articles/55789/why-i-majored-in-philosophy-despite-everyone-telling-me-not-to
======
objectiveariel
I love this bit: "I prefer to spend my college years searching, exploring, and
wondering, as opposed to training to become an "asset" in the file cabinet of
a "human resource" department. Rock on fellow baristas, rock on."

Translation: "I'll come out of university with no transferrable skills
whatsoever. Dreadfully unintellectual dead-end jobs are where I'll be able to
keep pursuing my love of knowledge".

Dude.

The author's bio is probably the most important part of this article:

"Grant studies at Wake Forest, where he majors in philosophy and economics."

Translation: "I'm passionate about _half_ the university course I'm
_currently_ doing and have absolutely no idea how the job market will treat me
when I'm done with it."

Full disclosure: I myself studied philosophy at university. I'm proud of it,
but I'd never boast about how poorly it prepared me for the job market.

~~~
lagadu
> I'm proud of it, but I'd never boast about how poorly it prepared me for the
> job market.

This is what I don't get: why is there an assumption that what you study at
university has to be in any way related to the job market? You study something
because you have an interest in developing it further, being able to get a job
doing it is just a secondary perk.

~~~
irishcoffee
"See the sad thing about a guy like you, is in about 50 years you’re gonna
start doin' some thinkin' on your own and you’re gonna come up with the fact
that there are two certainties in life. One, don't do that. And two, you
dropped a hundred and fifty grand on a fuckin’ education you coulda' got for a
dollar fifty in late charges at the Public Library."

~~~
organsnyder
If you approach college as a consumer of the information fed by professors and
books, the Public Library approach is probably a great value proposition
(though I'd question whether that $1.50 provided any value at all... :-) ).

However, a good education is much more than this. It includes the opportunity
to engage in back-and-forth discussions with professors and classmates,
building social and professional networks that can pay innumerable dividends,
and to pursue experiences that aren't immediately related to career
advancement.

College shouldn't merely be about vocational training. While that's one
valuable outcome, there is much more that can be gained. Of course, many
colleges (and individual students' experiences) fall far short of this—I wish
I thought this way when I was in school, and didn't just see it as another
hurdle to full adulthood—but that doesn't mean that the concept is flawed.

~~~
ktRolster
Not to mention: while public libraries are great and I love them, thy are
often lacking in-depth knowledge.

My local public library doesn't have a book on advanced logic design, for
example. It favors a more 'general' collection, and thus books with heavy
reliance on math tend to be omitted. Same with in-depth law books, they just
aren't there.

~~~
pmoriarty
You could go to a university library. Often they're open to the general public
for a modest fee.

------
johan_larson
I studied some philosophy in college, and found the experience pretty
disappointing. The field addresses some really fascinating problems, but I'm
not too impressed with their answers. A typical assignment in philosophy
consists of thinking about a really hard problem with no good solutions,
picking one, and arguing for it. And since there are so few fixed points,
almost anything is arguable. Really, it's a debater's paradise.

If I were to do undergrad all over again, with an emphasis on mental
calisthenics rather than job skills, I'd study physics and history. Physics is
rigorous and really builds your analytical skills. History is deep and builds
your research and writing skills. But both are ultimately grounded in reality.
There are none of those oh so precious arguments about whether reality is even
there.

~~~
IsaacL
I started a course in philosophy during my first year of university. I studied
CS (in the UK, where you don't typically go far outside your major) but I'd
always been curious about the humanities and thought it worthwhile to learn
about all fields of knowledge. I'd also read about philosophy for laymen books
as a teenager.

In the first lecture, I remember being surprised at how rational and logical
the lecturer was. However, in the second lecture, we started getting into the
details of different theories of meta-ethics. I was interested in the topic,
but the presentation was exactly as you describe, focused on hairsplitting the
viewpoints of everyone who'd debated the question previously.

In the last few years I was inspired to start analysing my own ideas and began
studying philosophy in my own time. I now know my undergraduate experience was
typical of analytical philosophy, which dominates the English-speaking
academic world. Unlike continental philosophers, they believe that there's an
objective reality and that our thoughts should be logically consistent.
However, they also have accumulated a pile of logical puzzles (Frege cases,
Gettier problems, the Raven paradox, etc) which imply that language does not
straightforwardly refer to reality, that certain knowledge is impossible, and
so on. This skepticism is (imo) at the root of the "debaters paradise" you
observed.

Anyone looking for an alternative should give Objectivism a serious study. It
has such a bad reputation in academic circles that I dismissed it for a long
time, but when I finally got around to reading serious Objectivist non-
fiction, I found it held together much better with my view of reality. It's
basically a version of Aristotelianism, with some of the mystical implications
removed. (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology is the book to read if you
want to dive in at the deep end).

~~~
pmoriarty
Anyone interested in Objectivism should read Nietzsche: the philosopher that
Ayn Rand did a very poor job of trying to copy.

I kind of hesitate to mention them in the same sentence, however, as Nietzsche
would have probably hated Rand and the Objectivists. Even Rand herself hated
Objectivists. There are long rants from her about them in her interviews. But
that still doesn't change the fact that Nietzsche was a big influence on Rand.

~~~
IsaacL
It sounds like you're parroting things you've heard second-hand.

I was heavily into Nietzsche in my late teens and early 20s, before
discovering Rand. He definitely influenced her in her early years, but by the
time she came to write down her own ideas she'd rejected pretty much all of
his ideas. She was an Aristotelian.

> Even Rand herself hated Objectivists.

This is not remotely true. In her later years, she concluded that the
organised Objectivist movement had been a mistake, but she still hoped for an
informal movement of intellectuals to follow her philosophy.

~~~
pmoriarty
Ayn Rand definitely moved away from Nietzsche (as they are very different),
but I think it's hard to deny his influence on her. Some parallels,
particularly her idea of the ubermensch, are very Nietzschean (though again,
the actual definition of the two differ markedly). To really understand where
she's coming from, and where she's getting her ideas (which are often better
and more deeply explored elsewhere) you have to read other philosophy.
Nietzsche is one, perhaps Aristotle is another.

As for my allegation of Rand's hate for Objectivists, it looks like I
misremembered. It was actually Libertarians who Rand despised, not
Objectivists.[1]

[1] - [http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-ideas/ayn-rand-q-on-a-
on-...](http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-ideas/ayn-rand-q-on-a-on-
libertarianism.html)

~~~
IsaacL
You are talking from ignorance. She doesn't have an "idea of the Ubermensch"
\- she esteems honest ordinary men highly, and condemns modern elites.

What is Nietzsche's solution to the problem of universals? What does he say
about the is-ought problem? What does he say about capitalism and individual
rights? All of these things are discussed in Rand, none are discussed in
Nietzsche, who rejects reason, logic and universal truths.

Sure, read other philosophy, but to really really understand where she's
coming from, you have to read her, and not confidently spout second-hand
misinformation.

~~~
pmoriarty
Rand is most known for her "virtue of selfishness" idea and her high esteem if
not worship of people who she considers to be superior due to their daring,
individuality, flaunting of social conventions, and self-centeredness. This is
a dumbed down or "mini me" version of Nietzsche's ubermensch concept.

Rand is not known for her view on any is-ought problem or her views on
universals. She may have something to say about them, perhaps it's even
original in some manner, but it's generally not what most Objectivists and
Libertarians flock to her for. They flock to her to get some philosophical
approval for their own self-centerdness. To those people I again recommend
they read Nietzsche, to learn what one of the most influential philosophers of
all time though on this subject that Rand tried to co-opt.

I never claimed and do not claim that everything Rand ever thought was thought
first by Nietzsche, but the central idea that she's known for and that she
championed she got (in a very distorted way) from him.

I also never suggested that Rand should not be read. It is a pity that she is
ignored in academia. As a result, most of Rand's fans are often effectively
isolated from the rest of the philosophical community and wallow in an
intellectual backwater, with little awareness that there are other
philosophers, what they thought, or how Rand's ideas relate to them. It would
be much better if her work was read, taught, engaged, and challenged in
academia, and her place in place in philosophical history was made more overt.

Finally, I have read Rand. Not nearly as much as her fans would have me read,
I'm sure. But enough to say what I say from first-hand experience.

------
uxp100
I like this. It's short, and covers how influential philosophy has been. And I
have no problem with snark from someone who's interest has become the butt of
cheap jokes.

However, when it comes to the greater conversation, I'm less generous. I think
an aspect of the supposed STEM vs Humanities divide is class, which seems like
a bit of a stretch now that I write it down.

I chose the most fascinating, lucrative, TRADE I could. And damn, it pays
well. And now people who had the freedom to go to an expensive University and
'explore themselves' can condescend to me while also feeling persecuted by me.
And my coworkers condescend back, but I remain interested in the humanities,
but it just was not a choice to go to college for the fun of it.

I was the first in my family to go to college, and from the start it was
understood that this was my ticket to the upper middle class, where your
parents aren't in tears figuring out how to pay their bills. (Although we did
OK, Dad found another job, etc. Never actually went broke. My mom just might
be the type to cry when frustrated.)

When people had the freedom to go to college to explore themselves and the
humanities, and you weren't expected to justify your degree, mostly rich
people went to college. As a small minded reformist Bourgeoisie, I'm OK with
this. Now is better than then. Lets make college even better in the future for
everyone, not just my kids, who will be free to explore themselves with post-
colonial vaporwave music production.

PS My father was in a real trade, I don't actually think of Software
Engineering as a trade, but I do think there is a class thing here.

~~~
aporetics
The Athens of Plato's time was a society built on slave labor. They were a
strictly patriarchal society (women weren't allowed to leave the house much),
and to be a citizen meant you didn't need to work for a living. In short: a
degree and a kind of classism we have difficulty imagining.

None of this mitigates the lessons that Plato, Aristotle, Heraclitus,
Pythagoras, etc., have left behind for us, and which await us at the local
library (or liberal arts college).

You're right that access to higher education is not where it should be. This
is well understood, protested, discussed, etc.

But the decision to pursue more or less lucrative paths is a free decision.

You may well be coerced by issues attending economic inequality. You may face
great sacrifice in order to devote yourself to something like philosophy[1].
And certainly the decision is inextricable from (let's not forget) your family
life (oh, you want kids? you want to live in a real house, not a tenement
house? you want healthcare and a minimal retirement fund?).

But these are decisions about what kind of life you want to lead, and the
examples above are about the comforts you may want in life. It is not a
coincidence that philosophy's purview lies in asking the questions that help
you understand why you value what you do, and base your decisions accordingly.
And it may even turn out that, in the course of better understanding why you
have found something meaningful in the past, that you no longer find it quite
so meaningful. You may, in fact, have turn of heart, and start a new chapter
in your life.

It would be great if we had social values that translated into an economy
which enabled academic pursuits instead of hampered them. (If you think this
is idealism run amok, take a look at Finland[2], with the best primary
education system in the world, where getting a degree in education is as
competitive and prestigious as becoming a doctor; not coincidentally, those
careers garner similar salaries).

But we're not there yet. Maybe what's needed are more philosophy majors.

[1] [http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/gifted-teachers-
lif...](http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/gifted-teachers-life-of-the-
mind-was-also-life-of-near-destitution/)

[2]
[https://www.google.com/#q=finland+education+system](https://www.google.com/#q=finland+education+system)

------
osullivj
"Philosophy is the discipline whose adherents kick up a load of dust, then
complain they can't see". Murray Gell-Mann.

Mind you, I do have a degree in Philosophy from a faculty very firmly in the
analytic school. Logic, metaphysics and ontology have been helpful in thinking
about software problems. For instance, you can think of Russell's On Denoting
("the king of France is bald") as being about null pointers, or dangling
pointers. And Kripke's rigid designators are a solution to the bad pointer
problem. One of my lecturers, Jeremy Butterfield, would always exclaim
"because Quine is our hero" whenever he mentioned the great man. "No entity
without identity" and "to be is to be the value of a bound variable" are
useful rules for software design as well as ontology.

~~~
dschiptsov
You forgot the precision of language usage and precision and clarity of
definitions, which has been the foundation of math - the way to deal with
meaningful abstractions, and then so called computer science, where naming,
clarity and reduced to the essence (to an optimum) abstractions (ADTs) are the
most important aspects.

Classification (ontology) and labeling of a human language gives us meaningful
type systems (Java has nothing to do with it). Logic gave us control
structures and ultimately algorithms.

The philosophy of science and epistemology gave us the absolute necessity of
tests and reality checks (otherwise one ends up with Hegelian abstract
nonsense or what we call theoretical physics).

And metaphysics is just nonsense for weak minded to boost their self-esteem,
which gave us "everything must be Object Oriented, statically typed, absurdly
verbose" crap.

~~~
aporetics
Lets replace language with an arbitrary (but precise!) 1:1 token system.

After all, etymology, idiom, metaphor, anacoluthon, etc., just muddy the
waters of clarity.

And if clarity is what we value above all else, then we can ply our new
arbitrary signification language to make all thinking about precise denotation
of external entities and their logical relations.

Fuck Plato.

------
saintzozo
I'm going to reproduce a reddit post I made recently that I think is relevant:

 _Analytic philosophy has made my mind a razor. It forged in me the confidence
and mental discipline to learn anything, and I 'm now dominating the tech
scene despite having little in the way of formal coursework.

I was lucky to choose one of the few disciplines that can be fruitfully
studied at Brown. As any student of a rigorous discipline, I was ultimately
responsible for my own intellectual growth; everything I ever truly learned
has been in solitude. The less-than-brilliant technical faculty, weak course
offerings, and charlatan arts professors had little negative impact on me. In
fact, being forced to retreat within myself was necessary for my success,
because it allowed me to look at reality more critically, unmired by the
prejudices and preoccupations of the misguided or less thoughtful around me.

I have nearly everything I want in life, but I was lucky to (1) pursue
rigorous scholarship and (2) be born with the abilities and personality that
made such a pursuit feasible at Brown. The less intelligent[^] or more
impressionable will be made failures at Brown. Those are the people I'm trying
to warn.

[^] For example, those who were not invited to attend a better Ivy League
university. It's very tempting for someone in this position to choose Brown
over a better option simply because it is wrongfully perceived as prestigious
for technically being an Ivy._

~~~
andkon
Is this satire? This is pretty much the perfect expression of all the most
insufferable moments and people I knew during my own analytic philosophy
education. It's even wrapped up in the fondest delusion of philosophy
undergrads: that you, through the sheer strength of your intellect, rose above
your surroundings.

Your shit ain't that great, man. If anyone goes through four years of
philosophy and is talking about their worldview like this, run away from them.

Edit: agh I read his blog and I regret to inform you all that this person
really has his stuff down pat definitely a true scholar here

~~~
Chinjut
Huh. Their website ([http://soixante-
neuf.homosexual.horse/veritas/](http://soixante-
neuf.homosexual.horse/veritas/)) does seem at least somewhat satirical, and
yet, if they are trolling, they are quite committed to it. They do seem to
post a lot on reddit about Brown:
[https://www.reddit.com/user/saintzozo](https://www.reddit.com/user/saintzozo).
Although those posts seem like a lot of trolling as well. Ah, I dunno. It's
difficult for me to figure out exactly the dynamics of trolling vs. other
forms of satire vs. sincerity that are in play here.

ETA: Ah, and here's the referred-to original post on reddit:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/BrownU/comments/50xjy7/another_alar...](https://www.reddit.com/r/BrownU/comments/50xjy7/another_alarming_example_of_censorship_at_brown/d78r5fm)

~~~
pjc50
> Their website ([http://soixante-
> neuf.homosexual.horse/veritas/](http://soixante-
> neuf.homosexual.horse/veritas/)) does seem at least somewhat satirical

How far through the URL did you read before realising that?

~~~
Aqueous
Honestly? Still not sure myself. The "leave a comment for my secretary" form
is either some Grade-A douchebaggery or trolling perfected. But if this whole
thing is intentional satire then it's too many layers deep to make its point.

~~~
andkon
Right?? I think trolling and satire are different, now that I'm looking at
this bud — satire needs to be obvious lest it further the goals of the thing
it's making fun of. Trolling actually needs you to buy into what it's saying,
which seems to be the goal here.

------
Mendenhall
Dime store philosophy. Some just want to be seen as philosophers and
regurgitate what others told them about anothers work.

I always had a passion for philosophy, I read massive amounts before even
going to college. I would read the ancient greek books that had english on one
page greek on the other then use a concordance to basically teach myself
ancient greek while making sure I had the context correct and not miss
anything in translation. Just for fun, All of Plato, Platonist, Gracian, the
Gita, Miyamoto, Zen koans, I Ching, Aurelius and many more before even
stepping foot in college.

I find there is a huge difference between a philospher and someone who studied
philosphy. You can always tell by their copy and pasted thoughts and the
disconnect between their mostly modern definitions and what was actually the
definition when the terms "started". Those who regurgitate others words in the
wish to appear worldly and wise are such a bore compared to those who are
actual philosophers. Dime store philosophers give the real ones a bad name.

~~~
usgroup
I'd say philosophers study philosophers... Not sure when that wasn't true?
Aristotle being the most famous academic philosopher ...

The thing that annoyed me was the number of philosophers that don't study
anything else but proceed to talk about it.

Stuff that hinges on politics or psychology for example where philosophers
just assume that something is human or social nature . Or when we assume that
justice is somehow primary in ethics . Etc

~~~
Mendenhall
I would disagree and say philosophers study philosophy and I use study in a
loose sense meaning "look into". I dont think you can read your way or study
your way into philosophy. To me that is studying someone elses work not
philosophy.

Oddly enough I find aristotle a bore, he was too myopic and clinical when
philosophy is no such thing. He was firmly rooted in the shadow cast on the
wall and not what was casting the shadow for my taste.

I would fall in the same camp as you and be annoyed by the "philosophers" that
dont study anything else and proceed talk about it. I find most "philosophers"
to not even be philosophers, they just like to be considered so.

~~~
usgroup
It'd seem that you have an implicit criteria for what constitutes doing
philosophy. What do you mean exactly? In school you read the philosophy of
others and write papers to try and add something to the arguments. Are you
thinking more the old school systems guys like Liebniz, Spinoza, Descartes,
etc who did other jobs and werent academically affiliated?

------
tomlock
I majored in Philosophy because I'm not optimizing my life for maximum profit.

------
6stringmerc
Anecdote: The smartest, intellectual, brilliant software developer / computer
programmer I've ever come across taught Logic II as an adjunct. He had his PhD
in Philosophy and could drown us with Second Order of Calculus so fast we
didn't know how it happened. He was so gracious it was almost comical. He
could look at the board, look at the class, and sort of attempt to explain but
it was clear he could see things ways we couldn't. I don't wish to go into
much detail but I will state he - single handed (which I believe) - built an
entire Regional Real Estate software suite from scratch over the years and was
constantly upgrading it to keep with the times. No maintenance mode junk. He
was the real deal.

------
nitwit005
> But hey, is it really worth it to spend upwards of $60,000 a year to read
> books that will still be around after graduating? Well, for some with eyes
> for graduate school it may be.

> Rock on fellow baristas, rock on

Finally, my dream of being a graduate student working at a coffee shop...

------
yodsanklai
I studied a bit of philosophy in high school, but it didn't really interest me
at that time. But getting older, I realize that philosophical questions are
pervasive. A lot of our contemporary debates and our disagreements are rooted
in philosophical questions.

Unfortunately, I find philosophy to be very arid and I'm sure it doesn't have
to be that way.

For one thing, a lot of philosophy books discuss past philosophers ideas. Of
course, some of their thoughts are still valid, but they're very obfuscated
and hard to follow for a modern reader. It's like if we were asking math
students to read Euclide to learn about geometry.

~~~
SupremumLimit
I get your point, but Euclid's books are still being sold (in translation):
[https://www.amazon.com/Euclids-Elements-
Euclid/dp/1888009195](https://www.amazon.com/Euclids-Elements-
Euclid/dp/1888009195)

~~~
yodsanklai
Seems I didn't pick the best example :) it has actually great reviews!

------
norea-armozel
I like some parts of philosophy like Whitehead, Dennett, and Rachels but
beyond them I really find most philosophers to be intentionally too murky. So,
I'm impressed when someone dares to slog through philosophy and come up with
something of substance from it. But honestly, I think people are better served
by majoring in math and only taking a minor in philosophy if they weren't hard
set on any given field of study.

~~~
bbctol
Philosophy's got a lot of different schools, and there are plenty of people
who major in it and still stick to the dry and analytic (confusing because it
uses way too many numbers and greek letters) and avoid the continental style
(confusing because it uses way too many made up words and rambling anecdotes.)

~~~
danielam
Add Derrida and other postmodernists to the list of those practicing
"obscurantisme terroriste".

~~~
norea-armozel
I can barely tolerate Foucault. And I've tried Derrida but I've always wind up
giving up since he just makes no sense to me. Then there's Zizek. That's one
person I just can't bother to listen to because I don't know what the hell
he's on about half the time (I tried reading his essay on transgender politics
and wound up giving up after the first paragraph).

~~~
pmoriarty
It doesn't make sense to you probably because you haven't had enough education
in philosophy. The thing is that philosophy rarely happens in a vacuum.
Usually philosophers build on and respond to the ideas of other philosophers.

So to really understand and see where they're coming from, you have to
understand their predecessors and the dialogue which has been going on for
thousands of years.

To understand the trickier philosophers like Derrida or some other
Continentals, you're probably also going to need the help of a talented
teacher who understands these philosophers themselves -- someone you're
unlikely to find in Analytic philosophy departments where contempt for
Continentals reigns. At best, you're going to get a strongly distorted view of
Derrida as Analytics see him. That will not do justice to his thought.

That said, I'm not a fan of Derrida myself. I much prefer Nietzsche and
Heidegger. Foucault's cool too, though, for his attempts to address power,
punishment, mental illness and marginalized portions of society -- all
subjects that other philosophers ever touch. I should read more of him.

------
huac
> Grant studies at Wake Forest, where he majors in philosophy _and economics._

~~~
fennecfoxen
Ah, a double-major. Good times, lots of fun. I minored in studio art at Wake
Forest myself: impractical for money, but helps keeps you sane, and it's nice
to do something that's very Physical after you've been on computers all day.

------
pmoriarty
An interesting list of some famous people with philosophy degrees:

[https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1k1qSRoDpuOeDVkYm10bTg3V3l...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1k1qSRoDpuOeDVkYm10bTg3V3lCUGEtRGJoVDRaOU1fSWx3/view)

~~~
dmerrick
The one that stood out to me most was Jean-Paul Sartre. Wouldn't it make sense
for a philosopher to have a philosophy degree?

------
dasil003
Probably a good idea to take advantage of that last freedom to pursue what
really interests you before you have to go get a fucking job.

------
drjesusphd
"First they came for the philosophers..."

We techies better be careful how we treat the humanities. The fact that our
skills are in high demand is an accident of history. The powers that be find
us very useful now, but that can change. There can come a time when the only
reason to code or study math/science is out of passion, and then we'll be in
the same boat as the philosopher. Then we'll have no moral high ground to
stand on because we cannibalized the humanities in universities.

Of course, if you're just in STEM for the money, then by all means chase the
next thing when that time comes.

------
todd8
It seems that the benefits of majoring in philosophy are confounded by the
difficulty of the subject.

Let me explain. There are subjects, say Philosophy or Physics, that are some
of the more demanding undergraduate majors and yet have limited job markets.
Simply getting through a Philosophy major signals that one is capable of deep
thinking, abstract thought, the ability to read book after book of long
complex argumentation and understand it in its historical context. Physics
places similarly difficult (but differing) demands upon its students.

A major in Philosophy signals to potential employers that this person can
read, write, and think clearly; a major in Physics does the same with an
emphasis on math and science. Such employees can be valuable because they are
almost certainly have high intelligence, they have demonstrated discipline,
and have a good work ethic.

The downside is that it isn't entirely obvious of what use they are to an
organization; they will require training and time to learn for many potential
jobs. I would consider something like a Philosophy or Physics undergraduate
degree combined with a Masters in CS to be a perfectly adequate, although
drawn out, education for the job market.

------
impostervt
I recently discovered an interest in philosophy, and found this book a great
introduction. There's lots of different types of philosophy - maybe you're
interested in what makes a government good, or maybe you're more into the
whole "what is reality" part of it - and this book provides an introduction to
the different types, as well as the major philosophers from the last 25000
years.

[https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Book-Ideas-Simply-
Explaine...](https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Book-Ideas-Simply-
Explained/dp/0756668611/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1473944547&sr=1-3&keywords=philosophy)

------
timwaagh
Most of the criticism i have regarding the humanities and philosophy in
particular does not apply to the american situation as people there pay for
their own education.

if a private individual wants to spend some time developing as a human being,
reading classic texts, admiring thinkers of past ages and polishing his
rhetoric and is willing to pay. then i say that's a good choice and power to
him.

if a government pays for someone to train in something which serves no
economic purpose, then the government is wasting its money.

i do like philosophy. i love a good argument. i read 'philosophy magazine'.
but i don't think the garbageman should have to pay for my habit.

~~~
throwaway729
So how do you square that with the fact that a lot of secondary education is
not remotely "useful" for most jobs?

The most common argument I've heard for universal secondary education is that
some amount of liberal education is necessary for a functioning democracy.
Which I think is definitely true, and the only question is where to draw the
line. It's clear to me that we shouldn't draw the line prior to literacy and
basic numeracy, but it's not clear why the current position of the line --
right between secondary and higher education -- is more meritorious than any
other position.

------
jdlyga
In general: if everyone is telling you not to do something, then there's
probably a good reason. Even if you're 100% sure that you're right and
everyone is wrong.

------
GoToRO
It's the difference between common people education, and really reach people
education: common people need to learn things that will help them make a
living, like programming; reach people already have the money so they get the
best education, the one that really opens your mind, like philosophy, history,
arts etc., plus some to help them keep power. It's just how things are.

~~~
Desustorm
Reach == rich?

~~~
GoToRO
true :)

------
gerby
I have a great respect for philosophers, and I consider myself a philosopher
too. Look at Alex Karp at Palantir (Doctorate level in Philosophy) and Stewart
Butterfield at Slack.. both were trained philosophers, and ended up building
very successful companies that are relatively outside of what they studied in
school.

------
nurettin
False: philosophy majors don't/can't have any marketable skills - they can
write books and make a living on controversial subjects.

True: Philosophy is a way towards impeccable logic and humanity - thanks for
saving us technically oriented purists from destroying ourselves and eating
eachother alive.

------
anotherarray
I waited to have a established career and money to pursue a Philosophy degree
just for the sake of it.

Many Americans obsess about graduating in their "dream field" before they're
22. It's much better not to worry about food, roommates, books, and so forth.

------
xupybd
Sounds great if you can afford to avoid a more marketable degree. In better
economic times this might seem more sensible to me but if you want to learn
how to be a better human there are cheaper ways.

------
metaphorm
this is from 2013 and the author was an undergraduate at the time. its now 3
years later. this is his LinkedIn profile

[https://www.linkedin.com/in/gferowich](https://www.linkedin.com/in/gferowich)

he appears to have done a bit of freelance writing and editing, but generally
not gotten very far into a "real job" as most of us would understand it. this
is not a criticism. he's very young and seems to be off to a reasonably good
start for a career in writing.

that said, the author seems to have strongly emphasized his social media clout
(twitter account mentions "most viewed philosophy/existentialism on Quora" or
some other inane thing like that) as if that was some sort of accomplishment.
maybe this is just a generation gap thing. I'm > 10 years older than this
fellow and I really don't relate to that at all. Damn kid's today. Get off my
lawn.

so what's my point? that Philosophy as a major seems roughly equivalent to ANY
non-technical major you might take as an undergrad. that's to say, it doesn't
fuckin matter. if you enjoy it and feel comfortable spending all that money on
your degree for it, then go ahead, but as far as career goes it probably has
no greater value than any other humanities major.

I know I know, sample size n=1. I'm not trying to generalize from this
anecdote. My previous paragraph is meant as a statement of opinion only.
Still, it is readily observed and I think many others would corroborate it. In
other words I disagree with the point of the linked article. There is no good
reason to study Philosophy in school. I say this as a person who dropped out
of a philosophy major in school, spent years living in "fun-employment" (that
means poverty if you didn't get it) and then went back to school for computer
science and got a real job. I never lost my interest in philosophy. If
anything I've read more, learned more, and had better discussions as a non-
academic amateur enthusiast than I ever did while studying this stuff in
school.

Studying philosophy is all well and good. In my opinion, in 2016 in America,
it is probably no longer a good idea to do this in the academy. The benefits
of this study (gaining deep insights that inform how we live) are available to
anyone who can read and find a decent forum (online or meatspace) to
participate in. The academy is no longer necessary and may now be an
impediment to studying philosophy, because it's so unreasonably expensive, and
our society has shifted towards expecting university education to be
career/money/job skills oriented.

------
sunstone
As my friend said of narcotics, they're ok just don't make them a career.

------
HarrietTubgirl
CONGRATULATIONS

------
andrewguy9
Because I'm really stubborn.

------
dschiptsov
I would like it too if someone would pay my bills..)

------
oldmanjay
> For some of us philosophy majors, we are just genuinely curious about some
> notions in life that are often taken for granted. For instance, is our
> ability to have rational thought just a product of our brainwaves, the
> interaction of different neurotransmitters? Or is there something more going
> on, something "supernatural" that allowed humans the capacity for rational
> dialogue?

What a shame a philosophy education confers no ability to address such a
question meaningfully.

~~~
pmoriarty
Whether it does or it doesn't is itself a philosophical question. If you are
interested in that question, you are interested in philosophy.

The same goes for a lot of other questions that people might not at first
blush consider philosophical questions, such as most any questions containing
the word "should".

I've found it interesting to see what extreme negative reactions a lot of
people have to the very idea of studying philosophy or even being interested
in philosophical questions. They're really outraged and think it's a complete
waste of time, usually not realizing how much of what they believe and of the
world around them has been and continues to be shaped by philosophy and
philosophers.

~~~
panic
It's possible to be interested in philosophy while criticizing the field as it
is taught. If you want to know how and whether the workings of the brain can
produce rational thought, you'd be better off pursuing a neuroscience
education.

~~~
pmoriarty
_> It's possible to be interested in philosophy while criticizing the field as
it is taught._

Absolutely. Criticism of philosophy is itself usually a philosophical
undertaking.

 _> If you want to know how and whether the workings of the brain can produce
rational thought, you'd be better off pursuing a neuroscience education._

That's a philosophical position, and very open to debate.

------
sebringj
After taking some in college, philosophy to me was more like a stepping stone
in critical thinking to embracing the light of science. I've noticed on so
many youtube forums for example, people postulate things without external
verification in nature, "if this then that" where tautologies and vin diagrams
and the like are held as absolute truths. It never was sold on that as there
are more dimensions to reality than our simple minds can grasp within a
cleverly worded statement.

The main point being is observing nature always trumps anything philosophy
will ever invent on its own. Philosophy is a nice way to help frame hypothesis
if you keep in mind that's all it can ever do and not take it too seriously. I
do give philosophy the proper respect it deserves for starting the fire of
thinking deeper so I could grasp what quality information actually was, but
then you must step off of it as something unreliable unto itself.

~~~
pmoriarty
Science can certainly be an interesting pastime, can provide lots of
interesting and intellectually stimulating results, is arguably responsible
for the technical advances we see around us, and you're likely to make more
money and get more respect as a scientist than as a professional philosopher,
but how much we're learning about the wold through science is very much open
to debate.

For one, the scientific study of perception itself (not to mention the study
of chemistry and physics) brings in to question how much of what we perceive
is real. The solid-seeming table not really being at all as solid as it seems,
or the small trees in the distance not really being small being some of the
commonest and simplest examples. There are plenty of other examples, from
optical illusions to a wide variety of phenomena detected through experimental
aparatus but not usually available to our senses, such as x-rays, viruses, and
so on.

Such phenomena and the stories scientists use to explain them have lead to the
widespread questioning of the reality of the world as we commonly experience
it, and even to questioning if the world itself is a simulation -- questions
from physicists, no less. These are philosophical questions, but ones I'm not
convinced that science is equipped to answer. I'm not sure what experiments
could ever be performed to determine whether ultimately, deep down, whatever
scientific instruments detect or theories postulate is "really real" or just
illusion. At the most basic level, it's questionable whether science ever even
"gets closer to" some kind of ultimate "truth", or whether they're always just
attempts to explain mere apperances.

There are many other objections to the claim that science is the only true,
valid, or legitimate way of acquiring knowledge, and to the claim that
scientific results are either true or approaching truth. But I'll spare you in
the interest of not making this post in to a book or boring you any more than
I already have. I'll just point to you these articles on Skepticism[1],
Epistemology[2], and Scientism[3] and move on to pointing out that even were
we to grant that the practice of science gives us access to truth, there are
still some realms off-limits to it, such as (more specifically) ethical
questions, and more generally telling us how we should act when given a
choice. There are no experiments which can be performed that can show us which
is the "right", "moral" or "ethical" choice in any given situation. One could
certainly survey some population, but that would only tell you what some
people think is right, moral, or ethical, not what actually is (unless you
think what the majority believe must be true, which is yet another
philosophical position and up for debate). So this is yet another example
where science just stands mute, and I don't see any way it'll ever be able to
speak on these subjects.

I think most well educated scientists realize these limits of science, and
consequently don't make grand claims for the Truth of what they're discovering
or the superiority of science over other fields. In fact, those subjects and
such claims are off-limits in most if not all scientific journals. It's
outside scientific journals, and one could say outside of science proper that
such claims are heard, and they're often made either by science fans who are
not scientists, or by scientists who really haven't studied the philosophy of
science much and get a little too carried away with the popular view of
science.

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism)

[2] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology)

[3] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism)

~~~
slfnflctd
I noticed you failed to mention utilitarianism, which asserts that there is no
better guiding principle for ethical choices than the greatest potential well
being (or happiness) of all affected sentient individuals. [This is the one
Sam Harris gets accused of 'ripping off' without mentioning it by philosophy
types who dislike him.] I've heard and read a whole lotta bluster from people
who have nitpicky issues with it, but I find it pretty satisfying.

Wikipedia -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism)

~~~
user731955373
[http://static.existentialcomics.com/comics/peterSingersBasem...](http://static.existentialcomics.com/comics/peterSingersBasement.jpg)

~~~
slfnflctd
That is wondrously hilarious. I am saving it, thank you.

Yes, there are some good counter-arguments (such as the one the comic refers
to), but in my mind they more indicate potential pitfalls that need to be
discussed and worked around rather than completely destroying the theory.

Most of this stuff doesn't translate into real world scenarios effectively
regardless, I look at it more as helping guide complex decisions which have to
be made in a chaotic and fast moving world that is difficult or impossible to
reduce down to pure data.

