Mary EllenJanuary 22, 2017 at 15:5913525 views42 comments
I personally have never had a Philosophy class and had/have no idea what to really expect. What would you believe to be the most important benefits of a philosophical education?
If you have to ask that question, then I suspect the philosophy bug hasn't yet bitten you. If you do not feel the pursuit of wisdom to be something akin to a need, without which you would be the poorer and utterly despairing, then the "stock" answers that can be given to your question will probably not have much effect.
Yeah ignore whatever that Thorongil dude said. It's a fair question and you don't need to "bitten", want to "pursue wisdom", or have some weird magical drive to be interested in taking a philosophy class (FYI: you will encounter a lot of that type of bullshit in your first philosophy class though).
From a practical standpoint a lot of people who go to law school study philosophy. In part because a great deal of the English philosophical curriculum emphasizes constructing and breaking down arguments and counter arguments. But the skills gained from classes are pretty cross-disciplinary and help out with a lot of different projects (e.g. writing, literary criticism, debate, etc.).
In fact one of the major benefits of taking philosophy classes or going through a more philosophy oriented education is the amount of versatility it still leaves you with. Rather than a specialist degree like accounting for instance, you'll be able to take lessons from philosophy classes toward just about any other endeavor you undertake.
One of my favorite benefits of taking philosophy classes when I first started in my undergrad was reading classical works. So if you're a bibliophile like I was, you might get a kick out of the readings you'll encounter in those sorts of classes.
Thanks Carbon! I am trying to get into class. To be 100% honest I have to take for Nursing school which is at one school, but for pre req university professors come from another school to teach and philosophy is a requirement through them for degree. I have heard such mixed reviews on this class beginning with good luck or omg I did so horrible in that class. So, I am hoping to get the most out of this class since its for a semester!
Reply to Mary Ellen Haha, yeah just roll with it and try to have some fun. A lot of those pre-rec phil. classes are mostly focused on reading classic works and little writing assignments about what those works are getting at. I wouldn't stress too much about it.
I can tell you that because philosophy is such a social field, most philosophy profs are really good about responding to students' questions and making themselves available if you need help. So if you run into issues snag your professor after class or something.
If you have to ask that question, then I suspect the philosophy bug hasn't yet bitten you. If you do not feel the pursuit of wisdom to be something akin to a need, without which you would be the poorer and utterly despairing, then the "stock" answers that can be given to your question will probably not have much effect.
Reply to Thorongil S/he is in a nursing program bro. No one beyond the newbie undergrads in philosophy gives a shit about the mystical connection with wisdom you think is required for REAL philosophy or whatever the hell you're supposedly doing.
I'd tone it down a notch as you're the exact type of person that turns folks like Mary Ellen off in those sorts of classes.
Reply to Mary Ellen I wouldn't be too worried about the class, Mary. If you're okay with analyzing the way you already think and view the world, then you should be fine. If, however, you don't want to have an open mind, like some of the dickflaps in this thread, then you might feel uncomfortable. Regardless, I'm more glad of the fact that you're required to take a philosophy class for your nursing program. That's heartening to hear, O:)
S/he is in a nursing program bro. No one beyond the newbie undergrads in philosophy gives a shit about the mystical connection with wisdom you think is required for REAL philosophy or whatever the hell you're supposedly doing.
I'd tone it down a notch as you're the exact type of person that turns folks like Mary Ellen off in those sorts of classes.
On the contrary, I would argue that the very nature of philosophical questions causes us to become "mystical" or "transcendent" or whatever you want to call it. They are so broad and general that they apply to practically all of existence. The questions are timeless.
I've noticed that when I study philosophy for a long time, I tend to lose this feeling and start to restrict the contents of my own psyche. It's not until I stop for a bit and break the cycle of narrowed-thinking that I'm confronted with the addicting nature of philosophical questions.
So if anything, modern (analytic?) professional philosophy has largely lost this feeling of timelessness and has instead become kinda bland and cutesy.
No one beyond the newbie undergrads in philosophy gives a shit about the mystical connection with wisdom you think is required for REAL philosophy or whatever the hell you're supposedly doing.
Other people not caring about what philosophy is doesn't change what it is.
I'd tone it down a notch as you're the exact type of person that turns folks like Mary Ellen off in those sorts of classes.
And turned off they should be. "Studying philosophy" for one or another vain end will prove a waste of time. Philosophy is deliberately useless, though not for that reason without value. But its value will never be realized except by those who feel the need to pursue it as an end in itself. The absurdity of claiming that a "philosophical education" can be had on account of taking a class or two ought to be self-evident, and if it isn't, then you are a philistine.
Don't despair if you are a hopeless philistine either. You can sublimate your will to power in all sorts of healthy ways, in a dominance hierarchy of your choosing. Take Donald Trump as an example. The most abject philistines can still be king.
S/he is in a nursing program bro. No one beyond the newbie undergrads in philosophy gives a shit about the mystical connection with wisdom you think is required for REAL philosophy or whatever the hell you're supposedly doing.
Quite a few people on this forum care about philosophy beyond it being useful for learning how to construct arguments. Take a logic class if that's the case. Or an ethics class, if that's the overriding concern for a Nurse.
As for philosophy in general, everyone at one point or another asks deep questions about existence, how to live, what's the right thing to do, how we know what we say we know, etc. It's a human endeavor to think about such things.
It's like asking what value art or music is, and being told that a sculpting class can help your dexterity when handling patients, or something. Even if it does, that's not the reason for art or music, nor should it be the motivation for taking an art appreciation class, or learning how to play violin.
Reply to Mary Ellen Hopefully, what you would gain is some insight to creative thinking when contemplating the nature of people and the universe, which are some basic questions we have about our lives.
However, what you are more likely to receive from academic philosophy classes is some historical background about some pop philosophers of any given era. Can be interesting, but may be quite boring depending upon how stuffy or open-mind the professor may be. Professors tend to like repetition of the same old, same old.
Yeah, yeah. Save it for the forum gents! Don't say that stuff in a class setting because people like me don't want to read garbage papers like that in said classes. What what you're talking about isn't academic philosophy - that's fine, just know your audience.
People like myself get paid to research, grade, and teach. We don't get paid to "be wise" or do all sorts of mystical nonsense. It's a vocation. So I'm not bemoaning what you do here on a forum like this - it's great! But do realize that for students, like Mary Ellen, who take classes (that people like me have to teach) - it makes it really difficult to get into the class if this is their take away. She was looking for info on classes - give her info on classes. Don't force your bizarre philosophical convictions down students throats. It's not cool, it's obnoxious for profs, and it's bad for academia. Save it for forum discussions, fun conversations with friends, etc. where it's no longer "bizarre".
But do realize that for students, like Mary Ellen, who take classes (that people like me have to teach) - it makes it really difficult to get into the class if this is their take away. She was looking for info on classes - give her info on classes.
Jesus man, so taking a philosophy class has nothing to do with the reason humans engage in philosophical query.
No wonder I'm so cynical about schooling. But hey, a lot of courses are like that. Physics is just about learning some equations. Math is just about solving some. History is about recalling some dates. Literature is about reading some books.
Sounds utterly boring to and devoid of meaning to me. But I'm not criticizing you. I'm criticizing the approach to taking classes.
Reply to Marchesk No no, I'm sorry if I'm coming off as mean spirited or cynical. Seriously, I think forums like this are great! But for different reasons than academia! Most of the stuff you talk about in the forums isn't academic; mind you, that doesn't mean it's not valuable! Just that it's outside of what academic philosophy is after.
But yeah, the academic side of things definitely has nothing to do with mysticism, being "bitten", or what have you. It's work man!
And this is to sully philosophy. "Academic philosophy," "professional philosophy," and the like strike me as oxymoronic phrases. One can be a professional plumber, car salesman, accountant, or massage therapist, but a professional lover of wisdom? If that doesn't strike a discordant note with you, then nothing I say will have any effect. I'm not - at least not yet! - calling for the dissolution of such philosophy, but I am stressing its unimportance and non-necessity with respect to pursuing what philosophy genuinely is.
Reply to Thorongil I don't feel sullied or less genuine - I feel like I'd like to continue to buy groceries. Academics aren't professional "lovers of wisdom" - you'll get no disagreement from me on that - we're professional academics. We spent ten years doing job training, not learning to be all deep and wise or because we thought it we were accessing the real "truth" of the universe.
Look, the line of absolute "purity" for me is pretty murky, but I'd probably lean more toward saying that forums like this, group discussions, etc. are more pure from a classical stand point. Which is great! But realize it's not what academia is, and poor Mary Ellen over there just had question about a single class in her overall career. I honestly couldn't care less if she wakes up after taking her class and feels philosophically "enlightened". I'd rather she just pass her class and maybe walk away thinking the educational experience was fun.
honestly couldn't care less if she wakes up after taking her class and feels philosophically "enlightened". I'd rather she just pass her class and maybe walk away thinking the educational experience was fun.
With all due respect, that comment saddens me. Maybe you're being pragmatic and all, and it fits with real academic experience, but couldn't one hope for more? Like poor Mary becomes intrigued by the sorts of questions philosophy raises? Maybe she even chooses to read a philosophical text during her nursing breaks?
And [s]inflating[/s] assigning grades to 20 something ignoramuses who barely know how to blink and who will forget everything you taught them, sell the boring textbook they had to buy, and wonder why the hell they just took your class is the best way of buying groceries?
I'd probably lean more toward saying that forums like this, group discussions, etc. are more pure from a classical stand point.
I don't feel obliged to hold up an Internet forum as any closer approximation to the ideal of philosophy than academia. I'm mostly here to kill time and don't pretend for a second that I possess or expect to receive an overflow of wisdom by posting here. But I do have high standards for what constitutes being a philosopher, yes.
I honestly couldn't care less if she wakes up after taking her class and feels philosophically "enlightened". I'd rather she just pass her class and maybe walk away thinking the educational experience was fun.
Right, your standards are low to vanishing. You can have them if you like, but just don't speak for all of those who are interested in philosophy.
Reply to Marchesk Straight up: I don't really care what someone does in their spare time. If they want to read Kant, great. If they want to watch porn or videos of people falling off skateboards - that's fine too. My job is in the classroom and my office. Do you want a structural engineer running around berating you for how you drive on a bridge or a random mathematician critiquing you for your slow or faulty ability to count the change you get from the grocery store? Probably not, right? Well, it's much the same for me. Philosophy isn't fucking Christianity - it's not my job to spread the 'good word', save people, and bring non-believers closer to philosophical-Jesus. I grade papers, read books, and write articles - it's fun, but it's a damn vocation... not a religious calling.
To that effect, phil. classes are common pre-recs in the vast majority of state schools (and many private institutions). If I recall correctly my undergrad university required either logic or Intro to Phil. for just about all non-science majors (even then I think logic may have been a standard class to take as it met humanities requirements). That's fine. I didn't decide that - it's the administration who sits down and hammers this stuff out at meetings. And the bulk of those decisions they make regarding pre-recs are usually part of a larger consideration regarding types of federal/state funding, endowments, and career statistics. Philosophy isn't for everyone - that's cool. I get it. Chem wasn't for me either, but I still had to take the class.
Reply to Thorongil So first off - yes? They're just students man, many of which are straight out of high school. I don't expect the majority of them to care about my field or not need book money for their other classes. Additionally I'm not sure why you think colleges inflate grades - I've heard about one meeting on that and it was in a sociology department a few years ago (a prof was consistently failing over half his class). At any rate - yes, doing my job for the college does allow me to buy food because that's how all jobs work.
Second, cheers on having high standards about whatever being a "philosopher" is. Whatever you think "philosopher" means is clearly not what academics are.
Third, it's school... So students take around 12-16 credits on average at my institution. That equates to 3-4 classes. A phil. class is usually just one of those and intro classes are almost entirely comprised of non-majors. If a student is more interested than that - they'll probably major in philosophy. If they're more interested than merely majoring, they'll come to office hours and meet with profs. Guess how many students show up to our department for fun on an average day (i.e. no tests, midterms, or finals in the near future)? On average about six. Four or five of which are the same students who are in their everyday because they are passionate about the field. It's not about "enlightenment" at that level (if you're after enlightenment join a Buddhist monastery or something) - it's about locking down solid letters of recommendation, getting better acquainted with texts via experts, and likely out of a love for the academic vibe because you see yourself headed that way with your career.
Here's what I'm getting at with a lot of this: I think you and a few others on this forum have a disastrous tendency to conflate this sort of glamorous image of "the philosopher" with modern academic philosophy. The latter simply does not fit with the former (and probably hasn't for several centuries). Creating "lovers of wisdom" is not the job of academia, universities don't get accredited for that. It's idealistic! It's maybe fun and creative to think about all the exciting and amazing things philosophy can do, but that's not why people go to college. As educators hired by our respective universities our job CANNOT solely be creating really "wise" students who "get it" and are "enlightened". We're paid to research subject matter, write papers on it, teach courses on specific subjects, and grade. Out of our 50-60 hour work week, most of the time is spent on the last two with meetings, emails, and bureaucratic stuff filling every other spare second.
Here's what I'm getting at with a lot of this: I think you and a few others on this forum have a disastrous tendency to conflate this sort of glamorous image of "the philosopher" with modern academic philosophy. The latter simply does not fit with the former (and probably hasn't for several centuries). Creating "lovers of wisdom" is not the job of academia, universities don't get accredited for that. It's idealistic! It's maybe fun and creative to think about all the exciting and amazing things philosophy can do, but that's not why people go to college. As educators hired by our respective universities our job CANNOT solely be creating really "wise" students who "get it" and are "enlightened".
No doubt you're right, but a the same time, it's kind of sad statement on education. And not just philosophy, but any subject matter, bet it art, literature, computer science, etc. So you're basically saying that students aren't there to learn, they're there to get a grade in route to graduating, which will look better on a resume than not finishing college. And those who choose an academic career do so because they like the atmosphere.
So why do we bother with the pretense of education at all? Instead, soon as little Johnny and Suzy can do the three RRRs, send their asses off to job training and trade schools, and be done with the silliness of taking a foreign language (unless that's part of the job training), learning about the Civil War, or reading some great piece of literature.
Let's stop fooling ourselves if nobody outside of an online discussion forum cares about learning. Because endeavors like thinking and asking questions aren't important and fundamental to being human. I can't help but wonder what the ancient and medieval schools would think of modern attitude toward education.
Since this is a philosophy forum, let's approach it a bit differently. What is the purpose of teaching philosophy in higher education? Is it just another subject to give students a choice of electives? But why? What do schools and society in general hope to accomplish? What will it do for the students who take these classes? Is it just to meet elective requirements and get a passing grade?
If so, then what's the freaking point? Might as well take a bridge class.
I grade papers, read books, and write articles - it's fun, but it's a damn vocation... not a religious calling.
What is a vocation? My recollection is that it is a calling, (religious) rather than a mere job. And a damn vocation is presumably a calling to serve the devil. That would explain the vacuity of 'fun', that seems to be the sole point of your doing philosophy, apart from the comfort and status it brings you. How sad!
Reply to Marchesk If you understand the purpose of any academic study then you understand the purpose of teaching philosophy as it is taught. If you understand the nature of philosophy then you would understand how it should be taught.
Here's what I'm getting at with a lot of this: I think you and a few others on this forum have a disastrous tendency to conflate this sort of glamorous image of "the philosopher" with modern academic philosophy.
I've gone back to school in what's nearly old age to study philosophy. The enthusiasm of people on this forum was one of my motivating factors a few years ago (as was the enthusiasm of a group of fellow old gits I still attend when I can, we call ourselves 'a philosophy group'). I'm mystified by what's disastrous about this tendency of ours to have an image of the philosopher that clashes with yours. I find it heartening, that various groups of thoughtful people are worrying away at intellectual problems. We in our various groups are every bit as real as you and your various students and fellow-teachers. I can't see how you have any more right to define the word 'philosopher' than us.
Studying philosophy is an obligation not an elective. Why? – because we are all philosophers whether we acknowledge it or not. The old adage that “philosophy is the first science” is true. We ask philosophical questions of ourselves and others from the beginning of our consciousness formation. Consciousness itself is a philosophical dilemma that we deal with our entire lives. Descartes maxim – I think therefore I am – is backwards it should be – I am aware therefore I think, feel, smell, touch, sense, etc. We are aware, whether we like it or not and because we are aware, we are compelled to choose something. The thinking about and choosing is what philosophy is about. It may be very rudimentary stuff like – should I eat; or it may be bit more complex like – should I kill that guy?
Having awareness and exercising judgement is a philosophical endeavor and we all do it. Some of us are a little more deliberate in going about this daily chore. It is to our advantage to refine our thinking in the philosophical arts – that’s why I am here.
Jesus Christ and all his friends... this certainly took a different direction than I anticipated. Rather than responding to the three respondents individually, I'm just going to try and knock this out in one blanket post.
Here's where I'm sensing the confusion is: Party X (me) is saying, "Hey! Academic philosophy isn't what you think it is." To that effect, I gave some advice to the OP to just have some fun in her class and not worry about all the crap others had said about needing to be "enlightened" or get "bit by the philosophy bug" or what have you.
Party Y is responding with basically a sort of Classical Greek late Renaissance, quasi-mystical, take on the values of philosophy. Perhaps reading what I'm saying as "Philosophy isn't valuable" or "Real philosophy is academic".
Now obviously I think philosophy is valuable or I wouldn't have committed my academic career to it as a field, right? So let's be done with that. As to "real" philosophy being academic - no. I have not said that, haven't implied it, nothing.
The disparity I'm getting at, is that Mary Ellen asked a question about a class. That class was an academic, pre-rec, philosophy course for her on her way to a nursing degree. You following so far? That means the objective of the enterprise is not be "enlightened", it's not have some mystical connection with philosophy, it's not treat the course as if it is the most valuable thing she'll ever do. Rather the objective is quite simply to knock out the damn class on her way to her intended degree. That's where I jumped in and offered some advice (which she thanked me for) and we all went about our business. There are very good odds that Mary Ellen, like 80-90% of the student populace, doesn't give a shit about philosophy as an academic field. And that's fine! She's not obligated to like it or care about it - she wants to be a nurse. Kudos. I didn't want to be a nurse when I was undergrad, I wanted to be a researcher of some type.
So now unless you are Mary Ellen, who seemed quite pleased with the response she was given, I don't know why her choice of classes or whether she is into them or not is a big deal to you. She can do whatever the fuck she wants as she is presumably an adult student capable of making whatever decision she wants to for her future academic career. Right? So the goal of my response to her extends no further than providing some general advice on how to handle pre-rec phil. courses.
Now for those of you who are not Mary Ellen - I respond the same way. Do whatever you want! It's great that you like philosophy! It's amazing that you want to talk about it all the time! I'm excited for you! Have a blast on the forums, read all the books you can get your mitts on, and treat philosophy with the reverence you think it deserves. BUT keep in mind two things:
Nurmero Uno - what you're doing isn't the same thing as academic philosophy - there are different goals. Some people are just taking the classes for pre-recs, some people just want an easy degree, etc. Equally as important, academic philosophy in the West could not care less about being enlightened. The university does not pay us to be enlightened or "get it".
Numero Dos: Don't impose your dogmatic views on philosophy on to other people who genuinely don't care. It makes you look like a nut-job and it's REALLY irritating in classes. When a nursing student is just trying to pass an intro phil. class s/he doesn't want to be bombarded with your views on philosophy, it's value, why you love it, and why you think that they should love it too. They just want to pass their fucking class. Haha. You following? You're not going to convert these people to your particular brand of bullshit by telling them they aren't pursuing enlightenment properly or they haven't been "bit" yet. If someone asks a question about a philosophy course in college, you just need to answer the question... you don't need to beat them over the head with your philosophical zealotry.
Cool? Does that make sense? Hopefully that clarifies where we're all at with this particular thread - which to remind you: was about a nursing student asking what to expect from a pre-rec philosophy course, what to make of some mixed reviews about the class, and if it's going to be valuable because she has to take it for a full semester.
hey just want to pass their fucking class. Haha. You following? You're not going to convert these people to your particular brand of bullshit by telling them they aren't pursuing enlightenment properly or they haven't been "bit" yet. If someone asks a question about a philosophy course in college, you just need to answer the question... you don't need to beat them over the head with your philosophical zealotry.
I'm not questioning the reality of people just wanting to pass a class. I'm also not saying that Mary Ellen or anyone else should be interested in the subject matter. That's up to them. I'm questioning the educational merit of having people take classes they view as just a means to an end.
Why have a nursing student take a philosophy class? Why is that an option for them? It's no different when people have asked why they had to take geometry, and what use it would be to them in the real world. If you can't give such students a real answer, and geometry isn't going to be part of their career, then you're wasting their time.
But it seems to me that a lot of courses could be presented in a way that shows their value. How might a philosophy course aid a nursing student? Well, surely ethics plays an important role in the medical profession. And ethical inquiry is a major part of philosophy. There are other areas of life that affect us all such as politics where ideas have philosophical roots. And ideas matter for policy.
But more than anything, asking questions about our existential condition, what's moral, how we know what we say we know, etc is fundamentally human. Everyone asks these kinds of questions in one form or another. It's like how creating and enjoying art and music are fundamental to being human. Art and music are everywhere, found in all cultures. So we could just force a boring music or art class on engineering students, say, or we could tie the subject matter into how it impacts engineering (good design for example) and life in general.
I don't see how viewing philosophy as something fundamental to being human (we all wonder at times) is somehow a particular brand of bullshit. It's just an observation that waxing philosophical is like breaking into song. Everyone can appreciate a little bit of philosophy like they can music. Why am I here? How best to live my life? What is the good, etc?
Presenting as just a course to get by is like making people take geometry just because.
As far as I can see, @Carbon's practical evaluation and frank description of academia aren't necessarily in much conflict with the more humanistic angle taken by you and others above. I think he's not unfairly assuming the possibility that @Mary Ellen may have rather unromantic reasons for taking this class, and responding on that basis. As far as his own personal relationship to philosophy or how he thinks academia should be run, he hasn't taken a position as far as I can see, but has been judged mostly on his tone. I'll back him up to the extent that academia is a slog and universities are not run to instill students with an awe of wisdom or even wisdom at all, but to produce individuals who are adept enough at critical thinking to meet a demand in the intellectual market that serves to advance technological development and economic growth, as well as to reproduce the educational system that produced them. That is, if there is a philosophical underpinning to higher education, it's instrumental rather than value orientated. Cry as we might about that, it ain't going to change soon. My only criticism of Carbon would be his indefatigable world-weariness that comes across as less than constructive. From a descriptive point of view, he's more or less on point.
Questions that raise, and that you've touched on, are: Is there a better way to do this? How do we get there? Worth asking with the proviso that the answers may not be of any help to Mary Ellen.
That is, if there is a philosophical underpinning to higher education, it's instrumental rather than value orientated. Cry as we might about that, it ain't going to change soon.
Well sure, but then my question is why bother with classes like philosophy if employment in an advanced technological society is the goal? Just have students take an intro computer programming course or Adobe/Microsoft class. Add a business management course. Statistics and data science are hot. Cut a a few requirements and set up internships in their place.
Why are we kidding ourselves with humanities course? Is it really going to help the next E-Corp employee think critically at their job?
You missed the part about reproducing the system. Philosophy is a recognized academic discipline and part of its function is to reproduce itself. Apart from that a little imagination will show how it can be applied in the workforce, and that's demonstrated by the fact that philosophy majors do sometimes get hired outside of universities. Similarly do humanities majors. (Actually, you could just put all this more holistically and say the overall system, society, works to reproduce itself and that we live in rather valueless times).
Anyway, there's a danger here of us falling into the same pattern as earlier exchanges of taking descriptions for endorsements. I find all this, especially as someone who works in a university, objectionable and I look for opportunities to work against it.
Cabbage FarmerMarch 11, 2017 at 16:13#602720 likes
Yeah, yeah. Save it for the forum gents! Don't say that stuff in a class setting because people like me don't want to read garbage papers like that in said classes. What what you're talking about isn't academic philosophy - that's fine, just know your audience.
You might follow your own advice, and consider the audience here. This is not a classroom, this is a forum for free and open philosophical exchange. The shifting fashions and professional interests that restrict philosophical discourse in the academy from one season to the next do not perform the same function here.
People like myself get paid to research, grade, and teach. We don't get paid to "be wise" or do all sorts of mystical nonsense. It's a vocation.
Do you mean to suggest that there is no traditional or conceivable correlation between philosophical activity and "wisdom", or between philosophical activity and mystical practice or mystical experience? That there is no room for philosophical conversation about these subjects?
Do you mean to suggest that the conventions of discourse among philosophy professors in the academy from time to time are the best or only standard by which we should distinguish philosophical conversation from other sorts of conversation, or distinguish appropriate philosophical subjects and doctrines from inappropriate philosophical subjects and doctrines?
I suppose it's just that sort of bias among professional academic philosophers that makes so much of their work so irrelevant to the philosophical activity of most members of our society. Arguably their failure to engage the public, to engage in discourses relevant to the public, means that the institution of academic philosophy fails to fulfill its social function.
What function? Surely you have some idea what philosophy is and what philosophy is for, aside from the fact that it's associated somehow with your paychecks and a certain stack of books.
So I'm not bemoaning what you do here on a forum like this - it's great! But do realize that for students, like Mary Ellen, who take classes (that people like me have to teach) - it makes it really difficult to get into the class if this is their take away. She was looking for info on classes - give her info on classes.
I agree that aside from your own helpful and insightful reply to Mary Ellen, most of the responses to her question were remarkably ill-suited to her purpose in asking.
On the other hand, arguably your reaction to some of your peers in the forum has been ill-suited to their purposes in making their own remarks in this thread. It seems you've shown more sensitivity to the interests of Mary Ellen than to the interests of the other speakers here, perhaps due to frustration at the lack of fit between your expectations about norms of philosophical discourse and the facts of philosophical discourse here.
Accordingly, it seems you may have done a poor job getting a good point across to your interlocutors.
Don't force your bizarre philosophical convictions down students throats.
Who has forced a conviction down anyone's throat? Expressing one's point of view as a free speaker is not the same thing as forcing anyone to listen or agree.
So far as I can see, you're the speaker in this thread who first suggested that the others change their attitudes and behavior to suit your interests and tastes, and who thus provoked a discourse on manners.
It's not cool, it's obnoxious for profs, and it's bad for academia. Save it for forum discussions, fun conversations with friends, etc. where it's no longer "bizarre".
I suppose many philosophers, including some in the academy, might agree that the current state of academic philosophy is bad for philosophy.
I see no reason to restrict philosophical conversation, or talk about philosophy, to suit the interests of professors. Perhaps it would be more convenient for them, if all their students showed up on the first day of class with intellectual prejudices already aligned with current academic fashions. Perhaps some professors prefer to manufacture consent by smirking and pouting in the margins of their discourse. One alternative to that sort of ritual would be to meet each student halfway to engage in genuine philosophical conversation, and thus train up each student's habits of reason along with the professor's.
It seems to me that sort of training, and the philosophical fitness it promotes in individuals and communities, is the strongest justification for the continued allocation of paychecks to philosophy professors. For what else do they accomplish? If the professors prefer to neglect that sort of labor, I suppose it's another example of the same attitude that makes so much of their work so irrelevant to so many philosophical conversations in our society.
Comments (42)
From a practical standpoint a lot of people who go to law school study philosophy. In part because a great deal of the English philosophical curriculum emphasizes constructing and breaking down arguments and counter arguments. But the skills gained from classes are pretty cross-disciplinary and help out with a lot of different projects (e.g. writing, literary criticism, debate, etc.).
In fact one of the major benefits of taking philosophy classes or going through a more philosophy oriented education is the amount of versatility it still leaves you with. Rather than a specialist degree like accounting for instance, you'll be able to take lessons from philosophy classes toward just about any other endeavor you undertake.
One of my favorite benefits of taking philosophy classes when I first started in my undergrad was reading classical works. So if you're a bibliophile like I was, you might get a kick out of the readings you'll encounter in those sorts of classes.
I can tell you that because philosophy is such a social field, most philosophy profs are really good about responding to students' questions and making themselves available if you need help. So if you run into issues snag your professor after class or something.
(Y)
I'd tone it down a notch as you're the exact type of person that turns folks like Mary Ellen off in those sorts of classes.
Perhaps some should be turned off if they're not ready yet.
Cheers.
Am I one of them? O:)
On the contrary, I would argue that the very nature of philosophical questions causes us to become "mystical" or "transcendent" or whatever you want to call it. They are so broad and general that they apply to practically all of existence. The questions are timeless.
I've noticed that when I study philosophy for a long time, I tend to lose this feeling and start to restrict the contents of my own psyche. It's not until I stop for a bit and break the cycle of narrowed-thinking that I'm confronted with the addicting nature of philosophical questions.
So if anything, modern (analytic?) professional philosophy has largely lost this feeling of timelessness and has instead become kinda bland and cutesy.
Other people not caring about what philosophy is doesn't change what it is.
Quoting Carbon
And turned off they should be. "Studying philosophy" for one or another vain end will prove a waste of time. Philosophy is deliberately useless, though not for that reason without value. But its value will never be realized except by those who feel the need to pursue it as an end in itself. The absurdity of claiming that a "philosophical education" can be had on account of taking a class or two ought to be self-evident, and if it isn't, then you are a philistine.
Quite a few people on this forum care about philosophy beyond it being useful for learning how to construct arguments. Take a logic class if that's the case. Or an ethics class, if that's the overriding concern for a Nurse.
As for philosophy in general, everyone at one point or another asks deep questions about existence, how to live, what's the right thing to do, how we know what we say we know, etc. It's a human endeavor to think about such things.
It's like asking what value art or music is, and being told that a sculpting class can help your dexterity when handling patients, or something. Even if it does, that's not the reason for art or music, nor should it be the motivation for taking an art appreciation class, or learning how to play violin.
However, what you are more likely to receive from academic philosophy classes is some historical background about some pop philosophers of any given era. Can be interesting, but may be quite boring depending upon how stuffy or open-mind the professor may be. Professors tend to like repetition of the same old, same old.
Yeah, yeah. Save it for the forum gents! Don't say that stuff in a class setting because people like me don't want to read garbage papers like that in said classes. What what you're talking about isn't academic philosophy - that's fine, just know your audience.
People like myself get paid to research, grade, and teach. We don't get paid to "be wise" or do all sorts of mystical nonsense. It's a vocation. So I'm not bemoaning what you do here on a forum like this - it's great! But do realize that for students, like Mary Ellen, who take classes (that people like me have to teach) - it makes it really difficult to get into the class if this is their take away. She was looking for info on classes - give her info on classes. Don't force your bizarre philosophical convictions down students throats. It's not cool, it's obnoxious for profs, and it's bad for academia. Save it for forum discussions, fun conversations with friends, etc. where it's no longer "bizarre".
Jesus man, so taking a philosophy class has nothing to do with the reason humans engage in philosophical query.
No wonder I'm so cynical about schooling. But hey, a lot of courses are like that. Physics is just about learning some equations. Math is just about solving some. History is about recalling some dates. Literature is about reading some books.
Sounds utterly boring to and devoid of meaning to me. But I'm not criticizing you. I'm criticizing the approach to taking classes.
But yeah, the academic side of things definitely has nothing to do with mysticism, being "bitten", or what have you. It's work man!
And this is to sully philosophy. "Academic philosophy," "professional philosophy," and the like strike me as oxymoronic phrases. One can be a professional plumber, car salesman, accountant, or massage therapist, but a professional lover of wisdom? If that doesn't strike a discordant note with you, then nothing I say will have any effect. I'm not - at least not yet! - calling for the dissolution of such philosophy, but I am stressing its unimportance and non-necessity with respect to pursuing what philosophy genuinely is.
Look, the line of absolute "purity" for me is pretty murky, but I'd probably lean more toward saying that forums like this, group discussions, etc. are more pure from a classical stand point. Which is great! But realize it's not what academia is, and poor Mary Ellen over there just had question about a single class in her overall career. I honestly couldn't care less if she wakes up after taking her class and feels philosophically "enlightened". I'd rather she just pass her class and maybe walk away thinking the educational experience was fun.
Ironic that it broke out into a philosophical discussion? She did ask on a philosophy forum. That's the risk. Might actually provoke a discussion.
Quoting Carbon
With all due respect, that comment saddens me. Maybe you're being pragmatic and all, and it fits with real academic experience, but couldn't one hope for more? Like poor Mary becomes intrigued by the sorts of questions philosophy raises? Maybe she even chooses to read a philosophical text during her nursing breaks?
What do see as the role of education? To get a job? Does poor Mary really need philosophy class to become a nurse?
I'm expressing my general cynicism of education, not a criticism of your career, btw.
And [s]inflating[/s] assigning grades to 20 something ignoramuses who barely know how to blink and who will forget everything you taught them, sell the boring textbook they had to buy, and wonder why the hell they just took your class is the best way of buying groceries?
Quoting Carbon
I don't feel obliged to hold up an Internet forum as any closer approximation to the ideal of philosophy than academia. I'm mostly here to kill time and don't pretend for a second that I possess or expect to receive an overflow of wisdom by posting here. But I do have high standards for what constitutes being a philosopher, yes.
Quoting Carbon
Right, your standards are low to vanishing. You can have them if you like, but just don't speak for all of those who are interested in philosophy.
To that effect, phil. classes are common pre-recs in the vast majority of state schools (and many private institutions). If I recall correctly my undergrad university required either logic or Intro to Phil. for just about all non-science majors (even then I think logic may have been a standard class to take as it met humanities requirements). That's fine. I didn't decide that - it's the administration who sits down and hammers this stuff out at meetings. And the bulk of those decisions they make regarding pre-recs are usually part of a larger consideration regarding types of federal/state funding, endowments, and career statistics. Philosophy isn't for everyone - that's cool. I get it. Chem wasn't for me either, but I still had to take the class.
So first off - yes? They're just students man, many of which are straight out of high school. I don't expect the majority of them to care about my field or not need book money for their other classes. Additionally I'm not sure why you think colleges inflate grades - I've heard about one meeting on that and it was in a sociology department a few years ago (a prof was consistently failing over half his class). At any rate - yes, doing my job for the college does allow me to buy food because that's how all jobs work.
Second, cheers on having high standards about whatever being a "philosopher" is. Whatever you think "philosopher" means is clearly not what academics are.
Third, it's school... So students take around 12-16 credits on average at my institution. That equates to 3-4 classes. A phil. class is usually just one of those and intro classes are almost entirely comprised of non-majors. If a student is more interested than that - they'll probably major in philosophy. If they're more interested than merely majoring, they'll come to office hours and meet with profs. Guess how many students show up to our department for fun on an average day (i.e. no tests, midterms, or finals in the near future)? On average about six. Four or five of which are the same students who are in their everyday because they are passionate about the field. It's not about "enlightenment" at that level (if you're after enlightenment join a Buddhist monastery or something) - it's about locking down solid letters of recommendation, getting better acquainted with texts via experts, and likely out of a love for the academic vibe because you see yourself headed that way with your career.
Here's what I'm getting at with a lot of this: I think you and a few others on this forum have a disastrous tendency to conflate this sort of glamorous image of "the philosopher" with modern academic philosophy. The latter simply does not fit with the former (and probably hasn't for several centuries). Creating "lovers of wisdom" is not the job of academia, universities don't get accredited for that. It's idealistic! It's maybe fun and creative to think about all the exciting and amazing things philosophy can do, but that's not why people go to college. As educators hired by our respective universities our job CANNOT solely be creating really "wise" students who "get it" and are "enlightened". We're paid to research subject matter, write papers on it, teach courses on specific subjects, and grade. Out of our 50-60 hour work week, most of the time is spent on the last two with meetings, emails, and bureaucratic stuff filling every other spare second.
No doubt you're right, but a the same time, it's kind of sad statement on education. And not just philosophy, but any subject matter, bet it art, literature, computer science, etc. So you're basically saying that students aren't there to learn, they're there to get a grade in route to graduating, which will look better on a resume than not finishing college. And those who choose an academic career do so because they like the atmosphere.
So why do we bother with the pretense of education at all? Instead, soon as little Johnny and Suzy can do the three RRRs, send their asses off to job training and trade schools, and be done with the silliness of taking a foreign language (unless that's part of the job training), learning about the Civil War, or reading some great piece of literature.
Let's stop fooling ourselves if nobody outside of an online discussion forum cares about learning. Because endeavors like thinking and asking questions aren't important and fundamental to being human. I can't help but wonder what the ancient and medieval schools would think of modern attitude toward education.
If so, then what's the freaking point? Might as well take a bridge class.
In this case, medical ethics would be relevant. What is a person, what is consciousness, that sort of thing.
Quoting Carbon
What is a vocation? My recollection is that it is a calling, (religious) rather than a mere job. And a damn vocation is presumably a calling to serve the devil. That would explain the vacuity of 'fun', that seems to be the sole point of your doing philosophy, apart from the comfort and status it brings you. How sad!
I've gone back to school in what's nearly old age to study philosophy. The enthusiasm of people on this forum was one of my motivating factors a few years ago (as was the enthusiasm of a group of fellow old gits I still attend when I can, we call ourselves 'a philosophy group'). I'm mystified by what's disastrous about this tendency of ours to have an image of the philosopher that clashes with yours. I find it heartening, that various groups of thoughtful people are worrying away at intellectual problems. We in our various groups are every bit as real as you and your various students and fellow-teachers. I can't see how you have any more right to define the word 'philosopher' than us.
Having awareness and exercising judgement is a philosophical endeavor and we all do it. Some of us are a little more deliberate in going about this daily chore. It is to our advantage to refine our thinking in the philosophical arts – that’s why I am here.
Here's where I'm sensing the confusion is: Party X (me) is saying, "Hey! Academic philosophy isn't what you think it is." To that effect, I gave some advice to the OP to just have some fun in her class and not worry about all the crap others had said about needing to be "enlightened" or get "bit by the philosophy bug" or what have you.
Party Y is responding with basically a sort of Classical Greek late Renaissance, quasi-mystical, take on the values of philosophy. Perhaps reading what I'm saying as "Philosophy isn't valuable" or "Real philosophy is academic".
Now obviously I think philosophy is valuable or I wouldn't have committed my academic career to it as a field, right? So let's be done with that. As to "real" philosophy being academic - no. I have not said that, haven't implied it, nothing.
The disparity I'm getting at, is that Mary Ellen asked a question about a class. That class was an academic, pre-rec, philosophy course for her on her way to a nursing degree. You following so far? That means the objective of the enterprise is not be "enlightened", it's not have some mystical connection with philosophy, it's not treat the course as if it is the most valuable thing she'll ever do. Rather the objective is quite simply to knock out the damn class on her way to her intended degree. That's where I jumped in and offered some advice (which she thanked me for) and we all went about our business. There are very good odds that Mary Ellen, like 80-90% of the student populace, doesn't give a shit about philosophy as an academic field. And that's fine! She's not obligated to like it or care about it - she wants to be a nurse. Kudos. I didn't want to be a nurse when I was undergrad, I wanted to be a researcher of some type.
So now unless you are Mary Ellen, who seemed quite pleased with the response she was given, I don't know why her choice of classes or whether she is into them or not is a big deal to you. She can do whatever the fuck she wants as she is presumably an adult student capable of making whatever decision she wants to for her future academic career. Right? So the goal of my response to her extends no further than providing some general advice on how to handle pre-rec phil. courses.
Now for those of you who are not Mary Ellen - I respond the same way. Do whatever you want! It's great that you like philosophy! It's amazing that you want to talk about it all the time! I'm excited for you! Have a blast on the forums, read all the books you can get your mitts on, and treat philosophy with the reverence you think it deserves. BUT keep in mind two things:
Nurmero Uno - what you're doing isn't the same thing as academic philosophy - there are different goals. Some people are just taking the classes for pre-recs, some people just want an easy degree, etc. Equally as important, academic philosophy in the West could not care less about being enlightened. The university does not pay us to be enlightened or "get it".
Numero Dos: Don't impose your dogmatic views on philosophy on to other people who genuinely don't care. It makes you look like a nut-job and it's REALLY irritating in classes. When a nursing student is just trying to pass an intro phil. class s/he doesn't want to be bombarded with your views on philosophy, it's value, why you love it, and why you think that they should love it too. They just want to pass their fucking class. Haha. You following? You're not going to convert these people to your particular brand of bullshit by telling them they aren't pursuing enlightenment properly or they haven't been "bit" yet. If someone asks a question about a philosophy course in college, you just need to answer the question... you don't need to beat them over the head with your philosophical zealotry.
Cool? Does that make sense? Hopefully that clarifies where we're all at with this particular thread - which to remind you: was about a nursing student asking what to expect from a pre-rec philosophy course, what to make of some mixed reviews about the class, and if it's going to be valuable because she has to take it for a full semester.
I'm not questioning the reality of people just wanting to pass a class. I'm also not saying that Mary Ellen or anyone else should be interested in the subject matter. That's up to them. I'm questioning the educational merit of having people take classes they view as just a means to an end.
Why have a nursing student take a philosophy class? Why is that an option for them? It's no different when people have asked why they had to take geometry, and what use it would be to them in the real world. If you can't give such students a real answer, and geometry isn't going to be part of their career, then you're wasting their time.
But it seems to me that a lot of courses could be presented in a way that shows their value. How might a philosophy course aid a nursing student? Well, surely ethics plays an important role in the medical profession. And ethical inquiry is a major part of philosophy. There are other areas of life that affect us all such as politics where ideas have philosophical roots. And ideas matter for policy.
But more than anything, asking questions about our existential condition, what's moral, how we know what we say we know, etc is fundamentally human. Everyone asks these kinds of questions in one form or another. It's like how creating and enjoying art and music are fundamental to being human. Art and music are everywhere, found in all cultures. So we could just force a boring music or art class on engineering students, say, or we could tie the subject matter into how it impacts engineering (good design for example) and life in general.
I don't see how viewing philosophy as something fundamental to being human (we all wonder at times) is somehow a particular brand of bullshit. It's just an observation that waxing philosophical is like breaking into song. Everyone can appreciate a little bit of philosophy like they can music. Why am I here? How best to live my life? What is the good, etc?
Presenting as just a course to get by is like making people take geometry just because.
As far as I can see, @Carbon's practical evaluation and frank description of academia aren't necessarily in much conflict with the more humanistic angle taken by you and others above. I think he's not unfairly assuming the possibility that @Mary Ellen may have rather unromantic reasons for taking this class, and responding on that basis. As far as his own personal relationship to philosophy or how he thinks academia should be run, he hasn't taken a position as far as I can see, but has been judged mostly on his tone. I'll back him up to the extent that academia is a slog and universities are not run to instill students with an awe of wisdom or even wisdom at all, but to produce individuals who are adept enough at critical thinking to meet a demand in the intellectual market that serves to advance technological development and economic growth, as well as to reproduce the educational system that produced them. That is, if there is a philosophical underpinning to higher education, it's instrumental rather than value orientated. Cry as we might about that, it ain't going to change soon. My only criticism of Carbon would be his indefatigable world-weariness that comes across as less than constructive. From a descriptive point of view, he's more or less on point.
Questions that raise, and that you've touched on, are: Is there a better way to do this? How do we get there? Worth asking with the proviso that the answers may not be of any help to Mary Ellen.
Well sure, but then my question is why bother with classes like philosophy if employment in an advanced technological society is the goal? Just have students take an intro computer programming course or Adobe/Microsoft class. Add a business management course. Statistics and data science are hot. Cut a a few requirements and set up internships in their place.
Why are we kidding ourselves with humanities course? Is it really going to help the next E-Corp employee think critically at their job?
You missed the part about reproducing the system. Philosophy is a recognized academic discipline and part of its function is to reproduce itself. Apart from that a little imagination will show how it can be applied in the workforce, and that's demonstrated by the fact that philosophy majors do sometimes get hired outside of universities. Similarly do humanities majors. (Actually, you could just put all this more holistically and say the overall system, society, works to reproduce itself and that we live in rather valueless times).
Anyway, there's a danger here of us falling into the same pattern as earlier exchanges of taking descriptions for endorsements. I find all this, especially as someone who works in a university, objectionable and I look for opportunities to work against it.
You might follow your own advice, and consider the audience here. This is not a classroom, this is a forum for free and open philosophical exchange. The shifting fashions and professional interests that restrict philosophical discourse in the academy from one season to the next do not perform the same function here.
Quoting Carbon
Do you mean to suggest that there is no traditional or conceivable correlation between philosophical activity and "wisdom", or between philosophical activity and mystical practice or mystical experience? That there is no room for philosophical conversation about these subjects?
Do you mean to suggest that the conventions of discourse among philosophy professors in the academy from time to time are the best or only standard by which we should distinguish philosophical conversation from other sorts of conversation, or distinguish appropriate philosophical subjects and doctrines from inappropriate philosophical subjects and doctrines?
I suppose it's just that sort of bias among professional academic philosophers that makes so much of their work so irrelevant to the philosophical activity of most members of our society. Arguably their failure to engage the public, to engage in discourses relevant to the public, means that the institution of academic philosophy fails to fulfill its social function.
What function? Surely you have some idea what philosophy is and what philosophy is for, aside from the fact that it's associated somehow with your paychecks and a certain stack of books.
Quoting Carbon
I agree that aside from your own helpful and insightful reply to Mary Ellen, most of the responses to her question were remarkably ill-suited to her purpose in asking.
On the other hand, arguably your reaction to some of your peers in the forum has been ill-suited to their purposes in making their own remarks in this thread. It seems you've shown more sensitivity to the interests of Mary Ellen than to the interests of the other speakers here, perhaps due to frustration at the lack of fit between your expectations about norms of philosophical discourse and the facts of philosophical discourse here.
Accordingly, it seems you may have done a poor job getting a good point across to your interlocutors.
Quoting Carbon
Who has forced a conviction down anyone's throat? Expressing one's point of view as a free speaker is not the same thing as forcing anyone to listen or agree.
So far as I can see, you're the speaker in this thread who first suggested that the others change their attitudes and behavior to suit your interests and tastes, and who thus provoked a discourse on manners.
Quoting Carbon
I suppose many philosophers, including some in the academy, might agree that the current state of academic philosophy is bad for philosophy.
I see no reason to restrict philosophical conversation, or talk about philosophy, to suit the interests of professors. Perhaps it would be more convenient for them, if all their students showed up on the first day of class with intellectual prejudices already aligned with current academic fashions. Perhaps some professors prefer to manufacture consent by smirking and pouting in the margins of their discourse. One alternative to that sort of ritual would be to meet each student halfway to engage in genuine philosophical conversation, and thus train up each student's habits of reason along with the professor's.
It seems to me that sort of training, and the philosophical fitness it promotes in individuals and communities, is the strongest justification for the continued allocation of paychecks to philosophy professors. For what else do they accomplish? If the professors prefer to neglect that sort of labor, I suppose it's another example of the same attitude that makes so much of their work so irrelevant to so many philosophical conversations in our society.
A lamentable state of affairs, I agree.