Careers for philosophy majors

[Kevin Solway]

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 . . .

That sounds good to me. I just hope they don't then say, "Well, we dealt with the idea cause and effect yesterday, and now we're going to move on to something else".

I remember writing philosophy essays at Uni, and the people marking the essays were more interested in the number of names you quoted and the extent of your bibliography than the quality of thinking in the essay. This would be consistent if it was a study of the history of Western philosophy.

I remember they didn't particularly appreciate quotations from Hakuin and the Buddha.

[Pye]

.

From my experiences, "academic philosophy" is a type of philosophy, and not a basket term for anything that goes on in a university. At the big uni, there are whole courses in determinism (causality), materialism, necessity and contingency, wherein causality is not the conclusion arrived to, but the foundational assumption, and the thinking goes on from there; and there are whole courses devoted to the nature of consciousness. I know of one prof who teaches every one of his philo courses through the point of view of brain neurology. I have already lent much criticism of the academy and its ways and means to these pages, but more fluid minds needn't take on the easy dichotomies, such as all university activity is philosophically useless, like "Wittgenstein was wrong; hence he ended with these miserable glances out the window." I get you all's passion in saying these things, but you might well avoid being hijacked into these manichaeanisms over and again.

I know professors who are just as Kevin suggests -- more interested in the use of effective quotes/support to your thinking than your thinking itself; just as I know professors who are not the least interested in reading padded papers and who openly criticize their colleagues for the former. I can pretty safely say that not very many of them are interested in mere regurgitation of the already-said, but rather understanding & analysis of it; and again, the former are openly criticized by their colleagues for giving things like multiple-choice tests. This and more is what makes the 2 courses in philosophy (required of every university student regardless of major) "the most dreaded 2 classes you will ever take," so the student lore goes. Students with particularly high anxiety over it often wait until their senior year to take any philosophy at all. They are upset to learn that they might have to think.

When I use the term academic philosophy, I mean by it literally for the academy. When it is for the academy, it contains your criticisms by default: the feeding-off of one another's work only (what I have priorly called the chewing-on-itself alone); it encompasses those long, dark hallways of linguistic suicide; it reeks of the necessity to publish (which often produces manufactured argument and minutia as well as a bunch of nods to one's colleagues in the forms of quotes and criticism); and it has the desire for notoriety written all over it. If it is by and for the academy alone, the results will often be the remote, convoluted, deconstructed-for-its-own-sake type of out-of-touch philosophy of which you all complain. That is how I mean academic philosophy. It's a type; not an entire location.

Personally, I am not there for the academy and I take it on the chin in the form of the penalizing poverty of more work/less pay I deal with, cheerfully declining the invitations to come join them in their citadel. There are even some well-meaning people in there; perhaps even a thinker or two; but the air is generally unhealthy inside.


.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

EI,

Nevertheless, whatever sort of "causation" that refers to, it isn't the causation that Spinoza advocated, or that Hume proved fallacious.

I read Hume's disproof of causality, and it was thoroughly unconvincing. It didn't even look like Hume fully believed his argument. He was making the academic point that thus far (in his readings and in the schools), nobody had given an adequate proof of causality. He rather arbitrarily said "these seven possibilities are the only seven possibilities of something to be absolutely true [and all of these 7 possibilities, taken together, meant that propositions can only be true by virtue of comparison], and you must accept my argument if you can't, at this moment, think of an alternative."

Thing is, I could think of alternatives. I really think he was mocking academics and their limited view of the world (taking one thing commonly believed, and applying it to something else commonly believed by the same people... and showing how one made the other impossible). And anyway, I was never so canny as to prove causality by induction. It would be ridiculous to do so in a post-Humean world. My proof of causality is by logical necessity. I'll spare you the nitty-gritty details, but the only non-causal universe that is possible is one that cannot be understood at all. Not accepting causality as universally valid requires a complete rejection of logical thought (since nothing, not even logic, is sufficient to understand the universe).

The causality that you are referring to "that one thing follows another in time", is a limited view of causality. Causality can be far more complex than that, and even anticausal events (where the effect precede the causes) must be accepted as part of causality.

That all changes (effects) have a cause is necessary; and, that the existence of all things is dependent on the existence of all other things is also necessary. That y always follows chronologically from x is a useful, but limited, view of causality.

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.

No, there's a huge difference.

Saying "all things [including x] are caused by Nature" sounds trivial and obvious, but it certainly makes an addition to our knowledge. It is not wholly redundant.

Asking "what causes Nature?" (or "Is Nature natural?" or "Is Reality Real?" or "What causes causality?" or "Is the Totality within the Totality?") is a question of an entirely different order.

I'll take, for example, the similar question "Does Existence exist?" This question cannot be asked: to exist is to be part of Existence, by definition. The property of existence and non-existence does not -- cannot -- apply to Existence itself. It is a confusion of type. Causality is not caused. But causality is not not-caused either. The idea of cause applies only to things. Causality is not a thing; it's therefore not redundant to ask these questions: it's completely absurd.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Pye,

From my experiences, "academic philosophy" is a type of philosophy, and not a basket term for anything that goes on in a university...

...If it is by and for the academy alone, the results will often be the remote, convoluted, deconstructed-for-its-own-sake type of out-of-touch philosophy of which you all complain. That is how I mean academic philosophy. It's a type; not an entire location.

I call it academic because the location has such a huge influence on the type of philosophy produced. The environment allows a certain breed of pseudo-philosophic doppleganger to thrive that would not even exist otherwise (they'd end up taking a more appropriate major). It is easy for a history buff to become a philosophy professor, which I think mad.

I can pretty safely say that not very many of them are interested in mere regurgitation of the already-said, but rather understanding & analysis of it; and again, the former are openly criticized by their colleagues for giving things like multiple-choice tests.

Well, even in history classes, you are supposed to understand and analyze the material. But historiography, even with as much creative and logical thinking as it does require, is not the same thing as philosophic dissection.

(History is just an example. I could have just as easily picked English, where straight-forward regurgitation of the book you just read is also not usually acceptable -- but philosophic thought is not necessary.)

My point is not that philosophy professors are idiots, or that the students are morons. They are often incredibly bright. It takes a lot of intelligence to even get accepted into university. My point is that what is being taught and accepted as philosophy, is by and large not philosophy at all.

I have heard fourth-year undergraduates, when asked what philosophy is, answer "philosophy comes from two Greek words, philos and sophia, which means 'love of wisdom'". This is often an acceptable answer, as far as the professor is concerned.

When I jump in and ask what 'wisdom' is, they invariably cannot give a clear answer. Given that philosophy is a conscious activity, they cannot be doing philosophy if they cannot even give a straight-forward, clear, answer as to what they are doing. They may be thinking, sure....

[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.

DQ: 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.

EI: Dismantled? You did no such thing.

I did, but I know you will never recognize it because it would mean abandoning the strong religious attachment that you have to St. Wittgenstein and his followers. I can't see this happening, any more than I can see a fundamentalist Christianity abandoning his attachment to the Bible.

There are many different ways that Wittgenstein's views can be dismantled. His system of thought has many weaknesses. For example, we can focus on contradiction inherent in Wittgenstein's views:

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.

We can ask ourselves: Is Wittgenstein's view here the product of propositional logic? Or is it an empirical theory?

If it is the former, then it immediately contradicts the view that propositional logic says nothing. If it is the latter, then it can only be a tentative hypothesis at best.

Either way, it can be dismissed as worthless.

Poof! Once again, a hundred years of "analytical philosophy" goes down the gurgler.

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).

Luckily, some propositional terms, such as " Totality" and "thing", are able to refer to things in the world, so that hurdle is easily bypassed. Since a "thing", say, is defined to mean any phenomenon in the Universe, any reasonings which apply to this generic concept of "thing" will automatically apply to all phenomena as a matter of course.

DQ: 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.

EI: See? You completely get that it's all a matter of values.

No, it's a matter of widening your logical purview so that it takes in the biggest possible picture, and not keeping it narrowly confined to mere academic game-playing within textbooks.

In essence, you're manufacturing your own "truths" by arbitrarily narrowing the focus of your logical investigation - which is what all academics do, of course. It isn't possible to be an academic without this contrived narrowing down of perspective.

This is one of the reasons why the word "academic" has come to mean "trivial" or "having no connection to the real world" in most people's minds. Even ordinary people can see that there is something wrong with it.

-

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Trevor,

Hume thought that a disavowal of causality led to complete philosophical skepticism. Whereas, one would have to deny everything they knew in order to truly accept it. That owes itself to that particular way of thinking about things.

Not accepting causality as universally valid requires a complete rejection of logical thought (since nothing, not even logic, is sufficient to understand the universe).

Your view hinges on the fact that the universe can be understood from more then a subjective or pragmatic way of thinking. I don't think that logic is sufficient to understand the universe, and in it's purest and most certain form, can be demonstrated to lead to only trivial conclusions. You seem to be begging the question here, by simply assuming that there must be an objective method to understand things.

Saying "all things [including x] are caused by Nature" sounds trivial and obvious, but it certainly makes an addition to our knowledge. It is not wholly redundant.

What can we do with that knowledge? It offers up nothing more then a proof of an empty term "causality". You can say that it says something about the universe, but can you demonstrate a proof of that, which doesn't appeal to the emotive desire to see logic work within the realm of metaphysics? I'd suggest that to say that this view of causality is absolutely true, says nothing about anything besides logic and language.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

David,

If it is the former, then it immediately contradicts the view that propositional logic says nothing. If it is the latter, then it can only be a tentative hypothesis at best.

Your begging the question in your suggestion that the non-absolute nature of empirical theories causes them to be worthless. In fact, empirical theories have demonstrated an extreme amount of utility through science, whereas logical theories concerning metaphysics haven't demonstrated any similar practical utility. Your view doesn't dismantle Wittgenstein, it merely asserts that it is worthless, as his view doesn't accord with what you value. You like Aristotelean logic games, because you can happily insist that they are certain. They are certain, within the context of logic. They just don't say anything about anything beyond that. You've gotta man up and take a chance at being wrong if you want to talk about the real world.

Luckily, some propositional terms, such as " Totality" and "thing", are able to refer to things in the world, so that hurdle is easily bypassed. Since a "thing", say, is defined to mean any phenomenon in the Universe, any reasonings which apply to this generic concept of "thing" will automatically apply to all phenomena as a matter of course.

You still need to demonstrate that terms that can be logically applied to the term Totality, represent actual properties within objects themselves. I can say that the Totality is characterized by unicorns, because if it wasn't it wouldn't be the totality, and thus property(unicorn) must absolutely apply to the totality. Yet here all I've done is place the term "unicorn" within the set Totality. It's true if we already thought that the term was part of the set, it's false if we believed it to not be part of the set. The truth of any talk of the totality depends entirely on what we already know, and the way we define terms.

In essence, you're manufacturing your own "truths" by arbitrarily narrowing the focus of your logical investigation - which is what all academics do, of course. It isn't possible to be an academic without this contrived narrowing down of perspective.

Well yes. The perspective is narrowed down so that they try to only talk about real non-trivial things. If you want to widen your logic purview, to include a bunch of trivial analytical truths, that's your business, but I'm afraid whatever you discover is worthless when applied outside of it's own domain.

[Faust]

.

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.

Can you explain that without the buzzwords?

[Faust]

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 . . .

That sounds good to me. I just hope they don't then say, "Well, we dealt with the idea cause and effect yesterday, and now we're going to move on to something else".

I remember writing philosophy essays at Uni, and the people marking the essays were more interested in the number of names you quoted and the extent of your bibliography than the quality of thinking in the essay. This would be consistent if it was a study of the history of Western philosophy.

I remember they didn't particularly appreciate quotations from Hakuin and the Buddha.

Well the cause and effect thing will still be dealt with for a while, but when the matter is solved, that is when atleast some delusion is wiped from those students, who believe origin of universe and God, and illogical faith and whatnot, then we have to move on to other topics in order to remove other delusions.

Yes, the referencing does occur to happen at times, i've experienced it and it's very very stupid and pathetic. it's like you have this complete coherent essay, but you didn't mention some obscure name, pisses the hell out of me.. one has to literally pry open the eyes of these 'pedagogues.'

[Faust]

.

From my experiences, "academic philosophy" is a type of philosophy, and not a basket term for anything that goes on in a university. At the big uni, there are whole courses in determinism (causality), materialism, necessity and contingency, wherein causality is not the conclusion arrived to, but the foundational assumption, and the thinking goes on from there; and there are whole courses devoted to the nature of consciousness. I know of one prof who teaches every one of his philo courses through the point of view of brain neurology. I have already lent much criticism of the academy and its ways and means to these pages, but more fluid minds needn't take on the easy dichotomies, such as all university activity is philosophically useless, like "Wittgenstein was wrong; hence he ended with these miserable glances out the window." I get you all's passion in saying these things, but you might well avoid being hijacked into these manichaeanisms over and again.

I know professors who are just as Kevin suggests -- more interested in the use of effective quotes/support to your thinking than your thinking itself; just as I know professors who are not the least interested in reading padded papers and who openly criticize their colleagues for the former. I can pretty safely say that not very many of them are interested in mere regurgitation of the already-said, but rather understanding & analysis of it; and again, the former are openly criticized by their colleagues for giving things like multiple-choice tests. This and more is what makes the 2 courses in philosophy (required of every university student regardless of major) "the most dreaded 2 classes you will ever take," so the student lore goes. Students with particularly high anxiety over it often wait until their senior year to take any philosophy at all. They are upset to learn that they might have to think.

When I use the term academic philosophy, I mean by it literally for the academy. When it is for the academy, it contains your criticisms by default: the feeding-off of one another's work only (what I have priorly called the chewing-on-itself alone); it encompasses those long, dark hallways of linguistic suicide; it reeks of the necessity to publish (which often produces manufactured argument and minutia as well as a bunch of nods to one's colleagues in the forms of quotes and criticism); and it has the desire for notoriety written all over it. If it is by and for the academy alone, the results will often be the remote, convoluted, deconstructed-for-its-own-sake type of out-of-touch philosophy of which you all complain. That is how I mean academic philosophy. It's a type; not an entire location.

Personally, I am not there for the academy and I take it on the chin in the form of the penalizing poverty of more work/less pay I deal with, cheerfully declining the invitations to come join them in their citadel. There are even some well-meaning people in there; perhaps even a thinker or two; but the air is generally unhealthy inside.


.

yes alot of the air is unhealthy, Pye what do you plan to do with this education? I myself am also a bit troubled with it.

[Matt Gregory]

Pye's plan is to remain here as our residing expert on academic affairs ;-)

Actually, I think the internet is going to change everything. It's going to bridge the long-gaping divide between the academic world and the working and alternative thought worlds. Just you wait.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

EI,

I don't think that logic is sufficient to understand the universe, and in it's purest and most certain form, can be demonstrated to lead to only trivial conclusions.

The only alternative to logical thinking is illogical thinking, so I would say that if logic is insufficient, then nothing can be sufficient. Deciding whether logic is valuable or not is a practical (ethical) issue. Nobody can force an appreciation of logic onto someone else; rather, its power can only be suggested.

Raw, deductive, logic is fundamental to all thought. It's a major component of modern scientific thought (inventing a hypothesis and deducing the consequences of the hypothesis; then, testing if the consequences occur to determine if the hypothesis is valid). In its most rarified form, it should not produce anything that is not obvious (such as the necessary truth of a definition). You call it "trivial" because it's obvious; I call it "fundamental" because it's obvious (and if it isn't obvious, something is seriously wrong with the person's thinking).

I would call an obsession with learning historical and scientific facts willy-nilly trivial (since it is the accumulation of trivia), not a love of logic (since the fundamentals of logic can be learned in an afternoon: the rest is application).

What can we do with that knowledge? It offers up nothing more then a proof of an empty term "causality". You can say that it says something about the universe, but can you demonstrate a proof of that, which doesn't appeal to the emotive desire to see logic work within the realm of metaphysics?

You are right, to an extent. Pure deductive logic cannot say anything new about the universe. It is structure, and nothing more. But I do not think that deduction is the extent of logic, and I might even give the more significant use of logic the name Logic (with a capital L).

Take David's "Reality is not nothing whatsoever." This is not raw deduction. It involves more than the basics (definition, self-identity, non-contradiction, and syllogism). It is necessarily true, but not based on simple logic: here, intuition is shown to be part of Logic. There is more said than is contained in the words themselves: form is given to something that was only defined.

If that seems a trivial point, then I can think of no further argument. Personally, I find it counter-intuitive, but undeniable -- and so it fascinates me.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Trevor,

The only alternative to logical thinking is illogical thinking, so I would say that if logic is insufficient, then nothing can be sufficient.

I'd suggest that we understand a thing insofar as we correctly observe it. Language has a tendency to lead us astray from the world as it appears, and with logic we can get back to that. Logic fails us when it leads us further from observation, or creates a semantic mountain to cover simplicity. Occam's razor states: one should not multiply entities beyond necessity. What should we call an analytic truth in the form of P=P other then an unnecessary multiplication of entities? If I were to say that experience exists, and that experience is always of things, and that things must then exist; I would be making it appear as if I've proven the existence of two distinct things from the knowledge of only one. I've done no such thing. There are appropriate uses for logic, but when one applies it to metaphysics, it leads only to deceptive conclusions.

Take David's "Reality is not nothing whatsoever." This is not raw deduction. It involves more than the basics (definition, self-identity, non-contradiction, and syllogism). It is necessarily true, but not based on simple logic: here, intuition is shown to be part of Logic.

Saying that "reality is not nothing" is the same as saying "reality is something". If we wanted to express that in the English subset E-Prime we'd have to say "one typically defines the term 'reality' in such a way that it does not refer to an utter lack of things". In E-Prime then, we can see that the statement barely qualifies as a proposition, but insofar as it does it relies upon observation to be true. Then again, I might be misunderstanding what is meant by the statement. How would you put "reality is not nothing whatsoever" in E-Prime whereas one cannot use the deceptive verb "to be"?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

EI,

Occam's razor states: one should not multiply entities beyond necessity. What should we call an analytic truth in the form of P=P other then an unnecessary multiplication of entities?

I think you are extending Occam's razor too far. Properly used, it's a principle of selection for empirical science (not logic): given two theories that explain the results equally well, the simpler one should be chosen. Occam's razor is never, properly speaking, a proof of anything.

Even were it for logic, in the case of A=A, not only is there no simpler way to properly explain self-identity, it is wholly necessary to express it in this fashion to explain the truth. Certainly, you can point out that all I'm really saying is "A", just as you can say that when someone says "2+3" they are really saying "5". But in both cases, you are missing the logical point: in one case, how identity works; in the other, how addition functions.

How would you put "reality is not nothing whatsoever" in E-Prime whereas one cannot use the deceptive verb "to be"?

I would not use E-Prime to express this truth. I would say that this statement uses the verb "to be" in its proper sense. On this note, I would also not consider "reality is something" as equal to this truth; rather, "Reality is" works far better.

[Edit: scratch that. Reality cannot "be" anything, since the definition of being is that the thing is question is part of reality. You've completely stumped me. I can't think of a different verb, even though "is" is not fully appropriate.]

[Faust]

i don't see the difference with 'reality is something' and 'reality is not nothing whatsoever' it could also be 'reality exists' which doesn't say much.

trevor which canadian university are you in? i go to mcmaster in hamilton. and, what is it exactly the rubbish that you guys are taught? i want to get more deeper into this problem.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Faust,

i don't see the difference with 'reality is something' and 'reality is not nothing whatsoever' it could also be 'reality exists' which doesn't say much.

I've had a lot of difficulty with this statement, in that I've never been able to find a perfect way to get the negation out of it. When you call reality something, you are saying that it is a thing: but when you are saying that it is not nothing whatsoever, you are not.

As to the other part, "Reality exists" is the same as "Reality is": the verb in both cases has the same meaning, and it's the meaning that it would have if reals were an actual word, as in "Reality reals." It's terribly cartoonish. That's why I corrected myself.

If I were allowed to guess, I would assume that the additional intuition is permitted by the negation (the "not").

trevor which canadian university are you in? i go to mcmaster in hamilton. and, what is it exactly the rubbish that you guys are taught? i want to get more deeper into this problem.

I go to the University of Alberta, and I'm in 2nd year of the philosophy program (been taking philosophy courses for the last 4 years, though. It just wasn't my major.)

Specifically, I have taken courses in Introductory Philosophy (101, 102), History of Philosophy (Aristotle to Descartes, Descartes to Hume, Kant to Nietzsche), Philosophy of Art, Women's Studies (for two classes), Formal Logic, and an entire course devoted to Kant. This semester, I'm being as relaxed as possible, and I'm taking something on Political Philosophy. I tend to talk to the students, as well as the professors.

The classes follow a rule very similar to the one that an eloquent internet-goon once expressed thus:

I just downloaded 'two women kiss and pee in the bushes.mpg', and it was a video of two chicks who kiss, then piss in the bushes. I don't know what I was expecting.

In the same way, I'll read a course outline: "explores the ethical systems of selected philosophers", and honestly believe that I'll get something more than that out of the course. The course will be an exploration of philosophers. It won't be philosophy. It will be a guided tour of a few choice snippets of things some great men said. There won't be any intention of turning the students into great men. There isn't any real, life-altering debate as to whether or not any is true or not (because they're all good ideas, and we can choose whatever we want).

I get exactly what I signed up for, but as depressing as that is, that is not what disheartens me the most. I have gotten over the fact that a history of philosophy course, even though it's in the philosophy department, is a history course. It is not a philosophy lesson.

What really disheartens me is when I talk to students and they are perfectly content with this situation. The students write essays for the grades, and to show off all the little glittering facts they picked up. I have a hard time imagining that very many of them will continue learning these things outside of class. To their credit, professors tend to be cynical of where the students are headed, and more than one has brightened considerably when I told them my ambition of being a "welfare philosopher", so I can work on theories outside of the constraints of the academy. They know, from years in the service, that the real philosophers are essentially unemployed full-time. Students don't grasp the consequences of following a dry system to the end: it dries you out, as well.

[Pye]

.

Faust13 asks:

Can you explain that without the buzzwords?

OK. Philosophy solves ethics. Go to philosophy first.

Faust13:

Pye what do you plan to do with this education? I myself am also a bit troubled with it.

I've been teaching philosophy courses at two different uni's for around a decade. I do this as an independent adjunct, and hence, no one directs my course content or looks over my shoulder; in fact, no one pays much attention to my course content since I am not part of the academy. When the tenured profs demand their course reductions and go on their sabbaticals, I sub-teach their topics and override their highest student evaluations by whole categories. I figure this is mostly because the students themselves are at stake and I make it so, not the material, grades, credits or academic accolades. It doesn't matter what the course topic is; I direct it in this way. And maybe nobody gets out of one of my classes without taking it on personally, at least whilst they are there. It's not a subject to me; it's life. And as an aside, between the two uni's, I have to turn down class options every semester. Because I am not in the academy, I always have to work one class short of a full-time load so they will not have to pay me an overtime wage. Right now, I'm doing three classes at the big uni; and all-day saturdays at the little one.

Faust, don't be troubled, if I might be so directive. You can transcend. Somewhere between "university study of philosophy is a waste of time" and "philosophy is the most important thing" is a whole range of proactive measures one can take to direct their own education. But if one wants to be the darling of the academy, you will be assimilated.

Sometimes, I find these sit-back-and-trash comments [I'm not really referring to anyone particular] regarding philosophy classes amusing, as though one is there passively waiting for a great soft nipple to feed them the most important things, and when it doesn't, it is entirely the fault of the course/professor and the whole project is without worth. It does not look any better to me than the wide-eyed taking on wholesale the values of the academy. There is something inbetween. You. Use it, I say. Use your studies in whatever way greater consciousness of things can be achieved, even if it is to argue your ass all the way through the subject.

I'm not a very good person to ask about career counseling, but I do know that a philosophy degree stills holds the same uncomfortable respect it always has; you will get looked at more than once. Graduated students are often writing back to the department telling of the experiences they have getting jobs with their philosophy degrees on their resumes. They all report the same set of comments from interviewers, that the philosophy student is at least bound to have some intelligence going on and that the degree still holds even impressive weight. At the big uni, they keep a running score of intelligence tests throughout all majors, because the philosophy student almost always measures significantly higher in every area. They even beat the shit out of English majors for linguistic aptitude :)

Faust, I know that in this world we are expected to earn a living, and that university degrees are supposed to usher that process along more gainfully and swimmingly, but what is it that you want to do with your life? If it is to be one of the educated and gainfully employed, I am quite sure your philosophy degree will not be a waste of time. But if it is to do something more than that, then I know everything about your being troubled where you are. Still, you have the resolution in your hands. Even mainstream jobs - or even teaching, writing philosophy does not have to be the death-knell to your thinking life; to your "real" life; to You. The world will be more than happy to let you make some money, especially if you make it the most important thing. If the most important thing is something else, then it's up to you to create a path for it.

.

Oh, and Trevor, whole departments have different values from university to university. The big uni I'm at has a collective distaste for history-of philosophy, but on the other hand, it's really stupid to put Intro students in a class and expect them to do philosophy when they've never seen it modeled, don't know what it is, and are doomed to repeat the philosophic movements and mistakes of the past. Once again, that dreaded balance; the harder work of the middle way, as opposed to the easy conclusions on either end.

.

Long post, I know, but had to squeeze-in for now. Have much work in the upcoming weeks and days.

.

[Unidian]

Interesting thread.

There is a way to integrate Wittgenstein's fundamental point with an Eastern understanding. I have a brief essay about it here, if anyone is interested.