Careers for philosophy majors

[hades]

I was wondering if anyone here was getting a degree in philosophy and knows what sort of career options are available...

I know of two good options, getting a phd and becoming a prof. or going to law school.

anything else?

[sschaula]

Write books and hope to sell them.

[Kevin Solway]

It's important to remember that academic philosophy doesn't have anything to do with philosophy. They are two completely different things.

So even if you have a degree in philosophy, it doesn't mean you have even touched upon philosophy, since degrees in philosophy are in academic philosophy, and not philosophy.

Academic philosophy is mainly concerned with mere words and irrelevancies.

If philosophy departments ever touched upon anything of any real substance, they would immediately lose their funding.

Becoming a real philosopher qualifies you to give excellent advice on all matter of things - but nobody will pay you for your advice, nor take any notice of it.

[hades]

It's important to remember that academic philosophy doesn't have anything to do with philosophy. They are two completely different things.

So even if you have a degree in philosophy, it doesn't mean you have even touched upon philosophy, since degrees in philosophy are in academic philosophy, and not philosophy.

Academic philosophy is mainly concerned with mere words and irrelevancies.

If philosophy departments ever touched upon anything of any real substance, they would immediately lose their funding.

What does the 'real' philosophy concern itself with?

[Kevin Solway]

What does the 'real' philosophy concern itself with?

Truth.

[Faust]

Kevin, one of my majors is currently philosophy (psychology is 2nd) in my first year. I have alot of respect for you as you are the few people like myself who desire to find the truth regardless of the consequences. Now, I have alot of criticism against university, since in this day and age it seems that one needs to go to them in order to show that they are 'capable' of something, which is bogus of course. But I want to know what are the specific problems of academic philosophy you are finding?

For my first year, we have touched on serious issues such as american foreign policy, moral issues of pornography which was heavy with men/women relations, the limits of 'deep' ecology, debate of god's existence/nonexistence, and many other important issues which i'm sure are relevant. now are you complaining that they do not direct more of their attention to issues of morality/human animality, differences with men and women? Now alot of times these things are discussed, but I want to know what your criticisms are specifically.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

faust, see David's essay:

On the Limitations of Academic Intelligence

I know this wasn't directed at me, but since I've had a few years in the program (Although, I must admit, I attend the local coffee shop more days out of the week than classes), I would like to answer this. The biggest problem with Academic philosophy is the people. Rarely is a professor more than an historian (that's almost a best-case scenario); but by and large, most have so much trivia in their skulls that they should be contestents on Jeopardy, not philosophy professors.

The average philosophy student is an incomprehensible mess of random ideas, and more than one has no greater ambiition than producing a theses for a particular professor in half-cocked prose, completely unaware of the long-term consequences of getting hired by a university (inability to create and dismantle theories on their own schedule). They are cowards who shun the truth and want to be able to have a standard work-a-day life (wife, car, house, well-paying job, respect of peers) and be a philosopher simultaneously. I would swallow my tongue before classing any of these jesters with Socrates and Nietzsche.

Which brings me to the second problem with academic philosophy. You listed all the "serious issues" that you studied in your first year. The problem is, for most "philosophers" (trivia geeks and historians), learning that stuff IS philosophy, and making more of it is their job. Hardly. Calling that stuff philosophy is like calling a bunch of Legos a steel girder and using it to build a bridge. It is no wonder that philosophy departments are the laughing stock of academia.

[Pye]

.

hades, everything now is ethics; this is what philosophy is 'used' for nowadays -- producing coherent ethics, mission statements and such, and directing companies in their responses to lawsuits, product integrity, acceptable methods of profit, attitudes toward employees, etc. - ethics, ethics, ethics.

Unless you teach (and not in the manner of academic philosophy); and unless you write (and not in the manner of academic philosophy), I would advise you to not do anything with a philosophy degree, but consider it a brute training ground for the fullest seizure of your own thinking life. Luxurious - even spoon-fed scheduling of mental discipline for those who can afford it; and entirely unnecessary for those who do not require such a goose to their already-motivated minds.


.

[Carl G]

Baker
Housecleaner
Short Order Cook
School Bus Driver
Taxi Driver
Doorman
Carpenter's Helper

Oh, you mean in your field?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Faust]

faust, see David's essay:

On the Limitations of Academic Intelligence

I know this wasn't directed at me, but since I've had a few years in the program (Although, I must admit, I attend the local coffee shop more days out of the week than classes), I would like to answer this. The biggest problem with Academic philosophy is the people. Rarely is a professor more than an historian (that's almost a best-case scenario); but by and large, most have so much trivia in their skulls that they should be contestents on Jeopardy, not philosophy professors.

The average philosophy student is an incomprehensible mess of random ideas, and more than one has no greater ambiition than producing a theses for a particular professor in half-cocked prose, completely unaware of the long-term consequences of getting hired by a university (inability to create and dismantle theories on their own schedule). They are cowards who shun the truth and want to be able to have a standard work-a-day life (wife, car, house, well-paying job, respect of peers) and be a philosopher simultaneously. I would swallow my tongue before classing any of these jesters with Socrates and Nietzsche.

Which brings me to the second problem with academic philosophy. You listed all the "serious issues" that you studied in your first year. The problem is, for most "philosophers" (trivia geeks and historians), learning that stuff IS philosophy, and making more of it is their job. Hardly. Calling that stuff philosophy is like calling a bunch of Legos a steel girder and using it to build a bridge. It is no wonder that philosophy departments are the laughing stock of academia.

So why are you still in the program? Are you aware of philosophy professors also take part in research which does give them time to create and dismantle 'theories' and publish them? I'm not that kind of person that wants to impress his professor, and just wants a 'job.' I would like to use my time to find the truth in things that matter, and do something more with this knowledge than teach it, so you cannot herd all philosophy students together and make them all look equally stupid. because there are people who do want the truth, perhaps a few, but there are. Also, not all of them are cowards, would u care to give some examples?

the limits of environmental protection is not serious? the questions of animals having 'rights' does not remind you of the differences between humans and animals? This is all important ethics that everyone from Weininger to the Thinking man's Minefield deals with. God's existence/nonexistence is not serious and important? Clearly the Minefield has delved into this, and any other philosopher such as Nietzsche and Socrates. What about morality and ethics and its nature? don't all the great philosophers also talk about that? Yes they do, therefore it's relevant.

Not all of what philosophy departments teach on is relevant, much like the great philosophers, but there is still some substance.

So what do you think should be taught than?

I leave you with an HL Mencken quote. "Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all other philosophers are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself."

Pye, are you agreeing with this notion of ethics or are you not? Do you think that there is business and corporate ethics? If not are you a socialist/communist/anarchist? In which case other severe disadvantages will apply as well.

Carl, may i ask what job do you do? the problem with philosophy is that yes it's hard to find a job, one of your best bets is to be a superb writer.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Faust,

So why are you still in the program?

The answer to this question would bite me in the ass, considering I use my real name on this forum. Let's just say that the complicated relationship I have to family and to government requires that I attend a bare minimum of classes, and that I pass each of them. I take philosophy because I can walk through it blindfolded and backward.

Are you aware of philosophy professors also take part in research which does give them time to create and dismantle 'theories' and publish them?

Yes. I'm not an idiot. However, if their primary interest was creating and dismantling theories, they would neither be teaching classes nor getting published.

I would like to use my time to find the truth in things that matter, and do something more with this knowledge than teach it, so you cannot herd all philosophy students together and make them all look equally stupid.

I didn't herd them all together. I described the majority of them as what you should have taken to be younger versions of the professors. Nor do I believe them stupid. I simply don't believe that they are philosophers.

Also, not all of them are cowards, would u care to give some examples?

Again, the fact that I use my real name here puts me in a bit of a pickle. If I were to describe any given one of them, it would not be hard to figure out exactly who I was talking about. This would not be fair to him. (Even were I to say, for instance, "every single person I've so far met in the department", it would be quite easy to track down who I talked to, since I talked to so many....)

The cowardice comes in many forms, but I will point out the two most common: 1) the inability to put philosophy ahead of all other ambitions; and, 2) elaborate webs of bullshit used to hide the fact that one is clueless.

the limits of environmental protection is not serious?

The obsession with cateloging the dangers of destroying the environment has grown far beyond the risks. I am no more concerned with destroying the environment than I was with Jesus Christ rising from the dead to celebrate Y2K.

the questions of animals having 'rights' does not remind you of the differences between humans and animals?

Sure, it reminds me that humans look different from other animals, and sometimes think differently too. So what?

This is all important ethics that everyone from Weininger to the Thinking man's Minefield deals with.

Are you sure about that? It sounds more like puzzles and word-play to me, only important so far as it teaches you how to think in the first place.

existence/nonexistence is not serious and important?

Not really. Debates about God are trivial, and not resolved by banging your head mindlessly against your opponent's stupidity. There are much more interesting metaphysical issues, such as causality (which is rarely emphasized in academies at all).

Clearly the Minefield has delved into this, and any other philosopher such as Nietzsche and Socrates.

It's mostly to clear up misconceptions that common people and beginners have, so they start thinking about more pressing issues. Nietzsche did a hell of of a job helping people not give a damn about God.

Yes they do, therefore it's relevant.

That's not proof. "Bill talks about this, therefore it's relevant."

Bill, just like any philosopher, can easily talk about irrelevant things.

Not all of what philosophy departments teach on is relevant, much like the great philosophers, but there is still some substance.

The substance sank to the bottom centuries ago, so you need to swim pretty deep to find it in a university. Mostly it's names and dates. The most important things are the methods that can be used to know Truth, but I doubt you'd find any professor admitting that the method they just taught you can be used for any such thing.

So what do you think should be taught than?

Exactly what is taught now. University philosophy should be a history lesson, because that's what a classroom is good for. Memorizing facts.

To actually learn philosophy, you have to do it yourself, apart from the school.

I leave you with an HL Mencken quote. "Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all other philosophers are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself."

I've heard it before, last time used to justify not learning philosophy at all. It's completely untrue, though.

I don't argue that all other philosophers are jackasses. I have great respect for all other philosophers (Socrates, Nietzsche, Lao Tzu, Buddha, David Quinn). What I don't have respect for are historians who claim to be philosophers. My respect for all philosophers is what makes me despise the lookalikes and dopplegangers.

[BMcGilly07]

Hi Faust,

I dropped out from my philosophy degree and University because of how professors gain their employ. To do well in philosophy classes means you have to be in agreement with the professor's understanding of the philosopher and what of his works is relevant. In order to gain tenure at University you have to rub elbows with these undersirables, impressing them with how well you get along with them and concur with their ideas.

Being the only job available in the field, professorships turn into clubs for like-minded wankers, by and large. So in a few generations the departments are infliltrated with stuffy bohemians who have no real passion for truth.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

I think the main reason that folks on this board have an aversion to modern philosophy is because the house philosophical beliefs can be demonstrated as fallacious with just a few propositions from Wittgenstein's Tractatus:

6.1 The propositions of logic are tautologies.
6.11 The propositions of logic therefore say nothing. (They are the analytical propositions.)
6.111 Theories which make a proposition of logic appear substantial are always false
7 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

[Kevin Solway]

There are much more interesting metaphysical issues, such as causality (which is rarely emphasized in academies at all).

I think that's a very good point. Causality is probably the most important thing in philosophy but is normally relegated to the "too hard" basket.

Something similar happens in psychology. There's virtually no discussion of "the ego" (ie, the deluded conception of self). I was sitting in a psychology course once, and they were saying things like "how can we explain this [particular psychological problem]", and I remember thinking, "You can explain it by the fact that the person who has the problem is an egotistical prat who doesn't know himself, or anything about life." . . . but that's not the answer they wanted to hear.

[David Quinn]

I think the main reason that folks on this board have an aversion to modern philosophy is because the house philosophical beliefs can be demonstrated as fallacious with just a few propositions from Wittgenstein's Tractatus:

6.1 The propositions of logic are tautologies.
6.11 The propositions of logic therefore say nothing. (They are the analytical propositions.)
6.111 Theories which make a proposition of logic appear substantial are always false
7 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

Like ostriches sticking their heads in the sand, many people will hide away in this belief-system for the rest of their lives.

And there was poor old Wittgenstein, spending his final years staring despondently out of a window .....

-

[ExpectantlyIronic]

David,

Like ostriches sticking their heads in the sand, many people will hide away in this belief-system for the rest of their lives.

Yes. Woe be them who understand the basics of logic.

And there was poor old Wittgenstein, spending his final years staring despondently out of a window .....

Edit: original text erased

From Wikipedia:

"He spent the last two years of his life working in Vienna, the United States, Oxford, and Cambridge. He worked continuously on new material, inspired by the conversations that he had had with his friend and former student Norman Malcolm during a long vacation at the Malcolms' house in the United States. Malcolm had been wrestling with G.E. Moore's common sense response to external world skepticism ("Here is one hand, and here is another; therefore I know at least two external things exist"). Wittgenstein began to work on another series of remarks inspired by his conversations, which he continued to work on until two days before his death, and which were published posthumously as On Certainty."

"Wittgenstein died from prostate cancer at his doctor's home in Cambridge in 1951. His last words were: 'Tell them I've had a wonderful life.'"

Despondently indeed.

[David Quinn]

Expectantly Ironic,

EI: I think the main reason that folks on this board have an aversion to modern philosophy is because the house philosophical beliefs can be demonstrated as fallacious with just a few propositions from Wittgenstein's Tractatus:

6.1 The propositions of logic are tautologies.
6.11 The propositions of logic therefore say nothing. (They are the analytical propositions.)
6.111 Theories which make a proposition of logic appear substantial are always false
7 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

DQ: Like ostriches sticking their heads in the sand, many people will hide away in this belief-system for the rest of their lives.

EI: Yes. Woe be them who understand the basics of logic.

Wittgenstein's take on logic was easily dismantled on the Fashionologers thread in Common Ascent. Some day in the future his views will be properly classified as belonging to the Dark Ages, as will many other beliefs of our age.

It is like asking the question, "Is A=A empty of content?" The answer depends on how courageous and open-minded you are. To some people, it appears to contain no content at all. To others, it contains all the knowledge in the Universe.

From Wikipedia:

"He spent the last two years of his life working in Vienna, the United States, Oxford, and Cambridge. He worked continuously on new material, inspired by the conversations that he had had with his friend and former student Norman Malcolm during a long vacation at the Malcolms' house in the United States. Malcolm had been wrestling with G.E. Moore's common sense response to external world skepticism ("Here is one hand, and here is another; therefore I know at least two external things exist"). Wittgenstein began to work on another series of remarks inspired by his conversations, which he continued to work on until two days before his death, and which were published posthumously as On Certainty."

"Wittgenstein died from prostate cancer at his doctor's home in Cambridge in 1951. His last words were: 'Tell them I've had a wonderful life.'"

That might be the official version, but I've heard other versions. I remember reading that he used to cut a forlorn figure in the sitting room of the house he used to live at, ignoring everyone else, staring out of the window. Perhaps I have it wrong ....

-

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Causality is probably the most important thing in philosophy but is normally relegated to the "too hard" basket.

For some people it is too hard to fully comprehend causality, and it could be unethical to teach causality if it will only be half-comprehended. Many people who partially understand causality lose their motivation to be responsible. One can not take the time with a large class to determine who is bright enough to fully understand causality, and teach causality to them and allow the rest to believe in free will.

Some people are unteachable. Working in the hospital, there were various tests I had to run on people - some required them to suck on a tube, others required them to blow into a tube. I spent years in amazement about how difficult it can be to teach people the difference between suck and blow. Some will never get a concept that simple. If half the people out there have a hard time with suck vs blow, I'd say that causality vs free will is only within the grasp of 3% of the population. Hopefully half of those will run across the concept of causality on their own.

The science department does a pretty good job with showing that if you do x, then y happens - so hopefully enough of that concept can spill over into parts of people's lives that they can make some use of parts of causality.

* * * * * * * * * *

If information could be very useful to a few bright people but very deleterious to many people, it is more ethical to make that information less accessable even on the chance that the bright won't find it than to teach it to those who will be harmed by it.

The way to reach those who can use the information without taking too much risk of harm to the rest is to casually disseminate the information, as you are doing now. The bright will catch on and the dim will dismiss you. Most of those few who stumble in between can easily enough be spotted and caught - then tutored or redirected to free will, as appropriate.
.

[AlyOshA]

Speaking of free will. Has anyone read this recent article in the NY Times and care to comment on it?

Free Will: Now You Have It, Now You Don’t

-

[Pye]

.

Faust writes:

Pye, are you agreeing with this notion of ethics or are you not? Do you think that there is business and corporate ethics? If not are you a socialist/communist/anarchist? In which case other severe disadvantages will apply as well.

Thankyou for your question, Faust.

Ethics is philosophy from the ass-end, in my estimation, and in view of that, verymuch indeed do businesses and corporations need to work on the ass-end of things, because they have not worked on the head of it first. Most people in general in bypassing the work of philosophy must also concern themselves in this ass-end way.

A person who has worked on the head of it first can seamlessly align themselves to every situation and action thereafter without need of worrying whether their behaviour is ethical or not. If sounding naive or ideal, we only need remember what wisdom and reason are. Thereafter, all falls out along those lines.


.


Oh, and Alyosha, ta for the decent read.

Will is not the problem. The word "free" attached to it is.


.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Would you please fix the link so we don't have to scroll all over the place on this page? Here - you can copy and paste this in if you want:

article


Thank you.

[Faust]

There are much more interesting metaphysical issues, such as causality (which is rarely emphasized in academies at all).

I think that's a very good point. Causality is probably the most important thing in philosophy but is normally relegated to the "too hard" basket.

Something similar happens in psychology. There's virtually no discussion of "the ego" (ie, the deluded conception of self). I was sitting in a psychology course once, and they were saying things like "how can we explain this [particular psychological problem]", and I remember thinking, "You can explain it by the fact that the person who has the problem is an egotistical prat who doesn't know himself, or anything about life." . . . but that's not the answer they wanted to hear.

Interesting, just today in class we were talking about the finite universe fallacy that the Minefield touches on. I don't know about you but there was almost nothing but lecturing on cause-and-effect, he was saying almost the exact same things we say. If a universe is finite, what is its origin? how can this origin come from nothing? Therefore, casuality demands that you cannot have something from nothingness, therefore the universe is infinite.

then, a new thing I heard, was that if it's infinite, then that means the universe was ALWAYS here, which apparently removes casuality since there's no cause of why it was always here, and therefore also removes the effect factor, leading to the conclusion that the universe was always here and was never here. This is nothing but casaulity so i don't know where you're coming from.

to the psychology thing, I am taking a course right now, we shall see what happens.

Don't think that I don't know the problem with the modern university today is, i'm a fan of Celia Green, but i'm not sure if all of it is rubbish.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Faust,

then, a new thing I heard, was that if it's infinite, then that means the universe was ALWAYS here, which apparently removes casuality since there's no cause of why it was always here, and therefore also removes the effect factor, leading to the conclusion that the universe was always here and was never here. This is nothing but casaulity so i don't know where you're coming from.

How does the timeless nature of the universe affect causality? Causality happens within the universe. It baffles me that people will ask questions like "what is the cause of causality?" or "is reality real?" and think that they can produce a meaningful answer.

If they spent a whole class on causality, then they have nothing more to teach you. Causality is important enough that they should either spend the rest of the year exploring the consequences of this belief, or let you think about it on your own (giving you the rest of the year off: examination on what you figured out at the end). I sincerely doubt that either will happen, and they will move onward to trivia.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

David,

Wittgenstein's take on logic was easily dismantled on the Fashionologers thread in Common Ascent. Some day in the future his views will be properly classified as belonging to the Dark Ages, as will many other beliefs of our age.

Dismantled? You did no such thing. The simple fact of the matter is that I think propositions need to refer to things in the world in order to be significant (I'm using the term "world" a little loosely here, but I think you know what I'm getting at). You, apparently, think they need to be logically solid to be significant. I imagine that you probably find my particular values as bizarre as I find yours. What we have is an irreconcilable difference.

It is like asking the question, "Is A=A empty of content?" The answer depends on how courageous and open-minded you are. To some people, it appears to contain no content at all. To others, it contains all the knowledge in the Universe.

See? You completely get that it's all a matter of values. You just happen to frame the argument in a manner sympathetic to your perspective. Your dislike of the academic community springs from the fact that they want to explore ways of talking and thinking about the ways things really are, whereas you want to play Aristotelean logic games.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Trevor,

How does the timeless nature of the universe affect causality? Causality happens within the universe. It baffles me that people will ask questions like "what is the cause of causality?" or "is reality real?" and think that they can produce a meaningful answer.

What we call "causality" refers to nothing so much more as our expectation that one event will follow after whatever event we imagine to precede it. The notion that this view of causality is some sort of necessary law of the universe is fallacious though. Such a view is derived from induction: every time I've struck one of these matches I've seen a flame; thus, every time I strike one of these matches I'll see a flame. Now you'll object on the grounds that there are circumstances at play that we cannot see, but this doesn't change the fact that your view follows from induction: every time I've thought about an event being causal I've been able to imagine that circumstances are in play that I cannot perceive; thus, all events must be causal as there are circumstances in play that I cannot perceive. Faulty logic.

There are some people on this forum that would say that everything is necessarily caused, by virtue that they are all caused by Nature or the Totality. Nevertheless, whatever sort of "causation" that refers to, it isn't the causation that Spinoza advocated, or that Hume proved fallacious. If we are to say that things are caused by Nature, then it is perfectly fair to ask what caused Nature. If we say that the question is silly, because Nature is everything, then we should have to say that suggesting that something can be caused by Nature is redundant, as we'd simply be saying that a thing causes itself. This might be all well and good, but it doesn't demonstrate anything about the sort of causation where one thing follows from another in time.

For instance. Imagine I were to say that xarkop refers to man jumping, and also unicorns existing. I could say that it's certainly true that xarkop refers to a man jumping. Thus, we can certainly see that xarkop is the case. That's all well and good, but it doesn't mean that unicorns exist. Now you might object on the grounds that I've proven xarkop, and that xarkop refers to unicorns existing, and that unicorns must then exist. Or rather, I know you're a smart enough fellow to get what I'm trying to say, so I won't bother to explain further. Unless of course, you happen to see a flaw in my argument.