Mentioning Phil phD's

[Agathon]

That was me, and it was originally in response to a specific question about what I do, not an attempt to garner any credibility at all (If you knew how many times people have confused philosophy with psychology or New Age nonsense then you would know that such an attempt would be doomed).

I am halfway through the PhD and the reason people like me do it is that wealthy universities are willing to pay us reasonable sums of money to do it, we like it, and we like teaching other people about it. Some people just like to know about stuff.

Why do philosophy? Well so you can learn to argue properly instead of persisting with the scattershot collections of empirical claims that many people do. People argue incredibly badly (I know - I'm the poor sap that has to mark their papers) and as a result I think that critical reasoning and simple philosophy should be mandatory in primary schools. This might sound snobbish, but would you say the same of a doctor who appraised the medical knowledge of a layman? Philosophers are in the business of evaluating argument and tend to get good at it with practice (although we all like a good troll now and then - but hey; nobody's perfect).

Why work in philosophy? Well people want to learn about it. Philosophy classes are always well attended and enjoyed by most students.

Why should the state pay for people to do philosophy? Well, because philosophy is of much use to people who are going on to many jobs - especially lawyers. You can't be a viable ethicist without doing philosophy either. And it's not as if philosophers are bankrupting the state. There are very few of us and the state need only pay enough for us to eat and buy books. We do the valuable service of dissecting popular ideas (like the idea of a rational autonomous subject of experience) in order to understand them better or dispense with them.

Philosophy is at the end and the beginning of all academic inquiries since these deal with knowledge, truth and the good, which are the special subjects of philosophy.

Like other historians of ideas we also keep a large wad of the collected literature of humankind alive for anyone who wants to know about it (and there are quite a few who do) and at a very reasonable price.

And its well known that you will find the brightest students at a university in Classics, Economics, the "hard abstract" sciences and philosophy. (and the dopes in education I might add) so the McDonalds accusations is wildly inappropriate (and plagiarised from the Simpsons, I might add - a program that tends to fascinate philosophers).

And let me be clear - by "philosophy" I mean to exclude all that French rubbish written by people with unpronounceable names.

[Asher]

I was required to take two philosophy courses, and I have to say they were the biggest wastes of my time, ever.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Why do philosophy? Well so you can learn to argue properly instead of persisting with the scattershot collections of empirical claims that many people do. People argue incredibly badly (I know - I'm the poor sap that has to mark their papers) and as a result I think that critical reasoning and simple philosophy should be mandatory in primary schools.

But you set up more strawmen (that or you truly do have comprehension issues) than anyone I've seen on Apolyton.

And its well known that you will find the brightest students at a university in Classics, Economics, the "hard abstract" sciences and philosophy.

Well-known (grammar, -1, by the way!) where?
I certainly don't consider the brightest students to be in Classics (what is this, anyway?), Economics, or Philosophy. I've met some really bright people in economics but most of the people I know taking economics don't exactly have spectacular GPAs, and they take easier courses than I do.

[Japher]

Why do philosophy? Well so you can learn to argue properly instead of persisting with the scattershot collections of empirical claims that many people do.

That's no reason, because it's not.



You should stopped at the money issue, that's enough reason for me.

Why work in philosophy? Well people want to learn about it. Philosophy classes are always well attended and enjoyed by most students.

Does that have anything to do with it being needed? I thought not. I am sure a class on love making would be just as popular, and maybe even more useful. At least the labs would be really fun. Maybe the reason the classes are always well attended is because they are so freakin' easy, and all you have to do is show up to pass.


I'll agree with you interp. of why the state should pay for it, but I think that all the other reasons for why philosophy is worthless kind of nix these reasonings. Besides, the topic is on a PhD in it and not just it in general, so I will try and shy away from attacking the "science" all together.

Philosophy is at the end and the beginning of all academic inquiries since these deal with knowledge, truth and the good, which are the special subjects of philosophy.

If that is the case then why have a study of other studies? Sounds rather redundant to me. Why isn't there a philosophy of philosophy then? Or how about a philosophy of whatever that would be?

Like other historians of ideas we also keep a large wad of the collected literature of humankind alive for anyone who wants to know about it (and there are quite a few who do) and at a very reasonable price.

Are you trying to sell us something?

And its well known that you will find the brightest students at a university in Classics, Economics, the "hard abstract" sciences and philosophy.

If it so well known, then why didn't I know about this? I think the brightest students tend to spread themselves over many disciplines dependent on what intrigues them. Maybe there is higher concentration of "smart" students in these courses. Yet, how do measure whether they are actually "bright" or just good at regurgitation?

And let me be clear - by "philosophy" I mean to exclude all that French rubbish written by people with unpronounceable names.

Ha!!!! At least we can agree on one thing. Yet, that is rather obtuse of you, being a philosophy dude and everything. I can say it because I am an ignorant oaf, you on the other hand try and make reasonable argument and then rebuke yourself with a comment like this. Are your as ignorant as I?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Agathon
And its well known that you will find the brightest students at a university in Classics, Economics, the "hard abstract" sciences and philosophy. (and the dopes in education I might add) so the McDonalds accusations is wildly inappropriate (and plagiarised from the Simpsons, I might add - a program that tends to fascinate philosophers).

I would dispute that, as I think it plain wrong.

Students who are bright will do the subjects for which they are most suited. People can be keenly aware of politics and economic, intuitively, but have no idea about even the most basic theories in physical sciences. The reverse is also true.


The difference is that in physical sciences and maths, the most gifted are usually far far better than their peers. Classics and economics tend not to have such a wide spread in ability.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Agathon
And its well known that you will find the brightest students at a university in Classics, Economics, the "hard abstract" sciences and philosophy. (and the dopes in education I might add) so the McDonalds accusations is wildly inappropriate (and plagiarised from the Simpsons, I might add - a program that tends to fascinate philosophers).

That's typical of the kind of crap an arts student comes out with. Claim to know it all but really don't know much but waffle. And certainly don't do much work

[Agathon]

Go look for yourself. I've read this several times during the years. The dopes are definitely in education though. I should say I'm talking about Grad school here, not undergrad stuff. They'll let anyone in to that.

Classics is the study of the Ancient civilisations of Greece and Rome and their languages. The workload is extremely high in a good department, and obscene in a good PhD program (like = no life). It's not like the other "Arts" subjects.

And there is a "philosophy of philosophy" one question that puzzles philosophers is what counts as philosophy and what doesn't. The peculiar French rubbish I mentioned earlier counts as a form of literature to me because there appear to be no arguments of substance in it. I don't see how it should be necessary to provide a lengthy refutation of Derrida and his mates - reading them should be enough. People who do serious philosophy are generally sick of being asked about this crap.

As for science students - well it's easy to get exam answers right if you can follow a mechanical rule and there is a right answer. Not like that where I live.

[Japher]

If there isn't a right answer then how can there be a wrong answer?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
As for science students - well it's easy to get exam answers right if you can follow a mechanical rule and there is a right answer. Not like that where I live.

Are you getting science confused with engineering...

[Japher]

I think he's getting science confussed with math

[Shi Huangdi]

"Classics is the study of the Ancient civilisations of Greece and Rome and their languages. The workload is extremely high in a good department, and obscene in a good PhD program (like = no life). It's not like the other "Arts" subjects."

They also tend to do the best in law and medical schools.

I know plenty of people who aren't smart and are in science. Now there are science students who do seem genuinely interested in their subject, but there are also plenty of people who just slug through their work and don't seem curious at all about their subject. There are also brilliant people I know who simply are not any good at math.

As for philosophy, maybe at your universities they are wastes of time. Here at Pitt, we have the second highest rated philosophy department in the country and the philosophy courses have a reputation as being extremely rigorous.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Agathon
As for science students - well it's easy to get exam answers right if you can follow a mechanical rule and there is a right answer. Not like that where I live.

That's a gross oversimplification. A science PhD is research (I am a biochemist by first degree), and believe me, there is no black and white or right and wrong, just ambiguity and finding sense in confusion...

[Tuberski]

History of the World Part 1:

Woman at unemployment window:" Job"

Mel Brooks: Stand-up Philosopher"

Woman: "What?"

Mel: "Stand-up Philosopher."

Woman: "Oh, A Bull**** artist."

ACK!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"Classics is the study of the Ancient civilisations of Greece and Rome and their languages. The workload is extremely high in a good department, and obscene in a good PhD program (like = no life). It's not like the other "Arts" subjects."

They also tend to do the best in law and medical schools.

I know plenty of people who aren't smart and are in science. Now there are science students who do seem genuinely interested in their subject, but there are also plenty of people who just slug through their work and don't seem curious at all about their subject. There are also brilliant people I know who simply are not any good at math.

As for philosophy, maybe at your universities they are wastes of time. Here at Pitt, we have the second highest rated philosophy department in the country and the philosophy courses have a reputation as being extremely rigorous.

Second highest rated is perhaps a little generous, but they do definitely have one of the top five programs in the US and clearly one of the best in the world. Robert Brandom is one of the most original and interesting philosophers alive today - I have learned a great deal from reading him. I wrote my Masters thesis on John McDowell who is also in the Pitt department. An excellent department all round, but the Ancient phil people there are in a bit of a state according to the rumour mill.

You are right about Classicists. I am in a combined program in Ancient phil, and that's had me working hard, but nowhere near the Classics PhDs.

If people are offended by my comments, there is no need to be. These reflect averages - it is not the case that all scientists are dumb or all economists are clever - it is just that disciplines with a high degree of abstract problem solving tend to attract students that can do it.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

Are you getting science confused with engineering...

No. Who could conceivably do that?

I said that gifted people tend to show up in the hard abstract sciences like physics and pure mathematics - although trying to explain to some of these people why Marlow feels like he does at the end of "Heart of Darkness" can be an impossible chore. I don't have much time for those whose PhD program consists of inventing some new sort of "widget" or who watch birds all day (the feathered kind).

In my experience computer science and mathematics students tend to be excellent logicians but not so good at ethics or political philosophy. That's a general observation based on 7 years worth of teaching what must now amount to thousands of students. And in my experience applied science students are brighter than those who do things like English lit or sociology, although a friend assures me that in Britain only the dopes do science.


Why has no one disputed my claims about students of education?

Can it be because they are true.