I don't need to have taken a debate class to know that there isn't a visible reason in that post.
I'm going to guess that you're a fan of some type of moral nonrealism (as in, morality isn't a law that we can find somewhere in the universe).
In which case, you still can talk about how humans have become deluded enough to believe that morality exists, or why do some people adopt some moral systems rather than others or, how we can implement specific branches of morality that people believe in etc. etc. etc. Those are all complex questions yes, and they may not have good answers, but surely there has to be a plan of attack on how to answer those questions too, right?
Or your objection could be to the "well even if there is a solution, we can't expect there to be a consensus!". But then you'd have to answer why for everything we consider "solved" that we typically do expect consistency among experts or the form of the solution. You don't build a bridge if the calculations come out completely different every single time, why should it be different for any other field, unless you feel like the field is "unsolvable" in which case why toss people uselessly onto an unsolvable problem?
Perhaps ethics is a uniquely bad example, pick your poison: Nature of the universe, cognition, epistemology, theology, human behavior. Either way, the criterion remains the same: How the hell do we know if philosophy is doing anything at all?
--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!? You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!
Why? Because they're more "practically beneficial"?
Because they are are all also philosophers
You think so? As someone probably going into law, I can tell you that lawyers certainly aren't philosophers. If anything, they descend from the lineage of sophistry, i.e. the antithesis of philosophy.
Since everybody likes clear definitions, let me provide one: by "philosopher," I mean "someone who approaches truth for the sake of truth alone." This would preclude people who draw a line somewhere and refuse to dig deeper, as well as those who pursue questions of truth only for some immediate or crude, practical end. I feel this definition captures what most people mean by the term, but feel free to disagree.
-- Fire Emblem: Awakening has the best music ever. Listen to it \/ http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL68CA009923BACBEE&feature=plcp
I think you're kind of glossing over the point of the article by writing off all these people's degrees as "useless philosophy/art history/etc undergrad degrees". There are some useless degrees in there, but there's also a guy with a doctorate in industrial chemistry, a guy with a masters in corporate finance, and a guy with a degree in civil engineering, to name a few. These are not degrees one would typically classify as inapplicable to the working world.
-- SuperNiceDog didn't have to reconcile his name... But Dauntless Hunter is now MrGreenonion
ToukaOone posted... I'm going to guess that you're a fan of some type of moral nonrealism (as in, morality isn't a law that we can find somewhere in the universe).
Correct. Moral realism is an impossible position to hold, by the way.
In which case, you still can talk about how humans have become deluded enough to believe that morality exists, or why do some people adopt some moral systems rather than others or, how we can implement specific branches of morality that people believe in etc. etc. etc. Those are all complex questions yes, and they may not have good answers, but surely there has to be a plan of attack on how to answer those questions too, right?
Yes.
I also happen to be an immoralist in the Nietzschean sense, meaning that I believe most "moral" judgments are constrictive Christian residuals that limit mankind's growth and potential, especially in a post-religious world where most morality is clung to out of habit and/or cultural inertia. That's also why I have a problem with strict scientific realism, since it has many core Christian principles buried beneath it. Except for that last sentence, this strikes me as something we can probably agree on.
Or your objection could be to the "well even if there is a solution, we can't expect there to be a consensus!". But then you'd have to answer why for everything we consider "solved" that we typically do expect consistency among experts or the form of the solution. You don't build a bridge if the calculations come out completely different every single time, why should it be different for any other field, unless you feel like the field is "unsolvable" in which case why toss people uselessly onto an unsolvable problem?
You'll have to clarify what you're getting at here before I can properly address it. Are you saying that philosophy is unique in what we expect as far as consistency among experts goes?
Perhaps ethics is a uniquely bad example, pick your poison: Nature of the universe, cognition, epistemology, theology, human behavior. Either way, the criterion remains the same: How the hell do we know if philosophy is doing anything at all?
You're asking the wrong question. As philosophy is concerned with the pursuit of truth, "how do we know if philosophy produced practical results?" is, philosophically, secondary to "why should we value practical results in the first place?" or, my personal favorite, "how do we evaluate the truth value of 'practical' information?"
-- Fire Emblem: Awakening has the best music ever. Listen to it \/ http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL68CA009923BACBEE&feature=plcp
Also while we do need some people to be waiters, we don't need people to be waiters all their lives while their hopes and dreams go unfulfilled no matter what they do to try and make it happen only to die in sadness.
-- SuperNiceDog didn't have to reconcile his name... But Dauntless Hunter is now MrGreenonion
If service industry workers are so goddamned important, why are you advocating treating them like garbage? You don't want single payer health care, or welfare, or any of the benefits that would give service industry employees something resembling a living wage.
--
Kid: She wrote a bad word! Jade: I write what I feel.
Since everybody likes clear definitions, let me provide one: by "philosopher," I mean "someone who approaches truth for the sake of truth alone."
I like that, but what if you seek truth for the sake of truth, and also for some practical end?
That's an interesting question. And everyone does pursue something other than truth alone, whether it's teaching or travelling or something completely unrelated to the philosophical lifestyle. Ultimately, the tension can probably be resolved by asking the question, "If truth and some practical end conflicted, which would take priority?"
-- Fire Emblem: Awakening has the best music ever. Listen to it \/ http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL68CA009923BACBEE&feature=plcp
You don't want single payer health care, or welfare, or any of the benefits that would give service industry employees something resembling a living wage.
Short answer: These things hurt the middle and lower class. I'm sure smuffin would be happy to give you the long answer.
-- _foolmo_ 'Oh please, if foolmo made that analogy you'd think it was picture perfect' - Biolizard28
What happens when technology reaches the point that there literally aren't enough practical jobs for everyone (i.e. we can automate manual labor and even simple mathematical jobs), to the point where maybe only 10% of humanity can actually work? Assuming that we can also completely afford to have government provide $100,000 a year worth of goods/services to the remaining 90% of humanity (again, via technology), would you be all right with this or would you demand that SOME sort of artificial manual labor be required for the other 90% to receive government benefits?
--
Kid: She wrote a bad word! Jade: I write what I feel.
What happens when technology reaches the point that there literally aren't enough practical jobs for everyone (i.e. we can automate manual labor and even simple mathematical jobs), to the point where maybe only 10% of humanity can actually work? Assuming that we can also completely afford to have government provide $100,000 a year worth of goods/services to the remaining 90% of humanity (again, via technology), would you be all right with this or would you demand that SOME sort of artificial manual labor be required for the other 90% to receive government benefits?
I can't even imagine a situation where this would be a problem. Even if machines take over for all manual labor jobs, people are always going to either find or create new markets and niches to work in.
-- Fire Emblem: Awakening has the best music ever. Listen to it \/ http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL68CA009923BACBEE&feature=plcp
What happens when technology reaches the point that there literally aren't enough practical jobs for everyone (i.e. we can automate manual labor and even simple mathematical jobs), to the point where maybe only 10% of humanity can actually work? Assuming that we can also completely afford to have government provide $100,000 a year worth of goods/services to the remaining 90% of humanity (again, via technology), would you be all right with this or would you demand that SOME sort of artificial manual labor be required for the other 90% to receive government benefits?
This is never going to happen because if the conditions are set up for it, a post-scarcity society is a given.
Assuming that we can also completely afford to have government provide $100,000 a year worth of goods/services to the remaining 90% of humanity
So the government would be setting an upper limit on the prosperity of the 90% at $100,000/year? I would absolutely not be okay with that, especially since by virtue of 90% of the population getting $100,000/year, $100,000 would be worthless compared to what the 10% make, so it's essentially locking 90% of the population into poverty with no hope of escape. Kind of like our current welfare state, but with less than 90%.
-- _foolmo_ 'It's easy to get yourself in trouble if you start quoting people who don't like you in your signature' - Mods
Ultimately, the tension can probably be resolved by asking the question, "If truth and some practical end conflicted, which would take priority?"
Ugh, you don't give up.
What if I said that that question is impossible to answer, because truth and practicality, at least for humans, are not independent things that can be compared side-by-side like that? Without seeking truth for the sake of truth, practicality is unattainable. And without a practical end to the truth, no one would seek the truth. Like you said, everyone pursues some sort of practical end to the truth, no matter vague. I suppose theoretically it is possible for someone to only seek truth for truth's sake and absolutely nothing else, an absolutely pure creature of truth. But such a creature cannot exist in humanity.
tl;dr in any proportion, the two are equally important
-- _foolmo_ 'Ulti is like when your parents post something on your facebook status' - Sir Cobain
What if I said that that question is impossible to answer, because truth and practicality, at least for humans, are not independent things that can be compared side-by-side like that? Without seeking truth for the sake of truth, practicality is unattainable. And without a practical end to the truth, no one would seek the truth. Like you said, everyone pursues some sort of practical end to the truth, no matter vague. I suppose theoretically it is possible for someone to only seek truth for truth's sake and absolutely nothing else, an absolutely pure creature of truth. But such a creature cannot exist in humanity.
This answer is probably going to drive you crazy... but this question about the interconnectedness of truth and practicality is itself a question dealing with, and consequently a prioritization of, truth.
It's also a question that falls under the same umbrella as many similar, post-Platonic questions that have redefined the aims of philosophy in the past two hundred years. What are the limits of truth? Even if we have access to truth, why concern ourselves with it? Why value truth over untruth? All of these may seem to be "practical" in that they're critical of reason, but it is reason, in sensing its own limits, that demands we ask these questions. A "practical" response to such questions would be to ignore them.
-- Fire Emblem: Awakening has the best music ever. Listen to it \/ http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL68CA009923BACBEE&feature=plcp
What if I said that that question is impossible to answer, because truth and practicality, at least for humans, are not independent things that can be compared side-by-side like that? Without seeking truth for the sake of truth, practicality is unattainable. And without a practical end to the truth, no one would seek the truth. Like you said, everyone pursues some sort of practical end to the truth, no matter vague. I suppose theoretically it is possible for someone to only seek truth for truth's sake and absolutely nothing else, an absolutely pure creature of truth. But such a creature cannot exist in humanity.
This answer is probably going to drive you crazy... but this question about the interconnectedness of truth and practicality is itself a question dealing with, and consequently a prioritization of, truth.
It's also a question that falls under the same umbrella as many similar, post-Platonic questions that have redefined the aims of philosophy in the past two hundred years. What are the limits of truth? Even if we have access to truth, why concern ourselves with it? Why value truth over untruth? All of these may seem to be "practical" in that they're critical of reason, but it is reason, in sensing its own limits, that demands we ask these questions. A "practical" response to such questions would be to ignore them.
Incorrect. The heart of practicality is optimization of resources. One resource is our creativity, which is limited by our conception of reality. A less than perfect conception of reality will yield less than perfect fruits. So setting aside a portion of humanity to investigate these questions is in fact a smart move.
A "practical" response to such questions would be to ignore them.
Way ahead of you
Atta boy.
KanzarisKelshen posted...
Incorrect. The heart of practicality is optimization of resources. One resource is our creativity, which is limited by our conception of reality. A less than perfect conception of reality will yield less than perfect fruits. So setting aside a portion of humanity to investigate these questions is in fact a smart move.
You seem to be approaching this topic from the mind of some SimCity player, where we need to make sure a certain percentage of the population is tackling some particular aim (here, philosophical problems). That's fine. It's also not really relevant.
-- Fire Emblem: Awakening has the best music ever. Listen to it \/ http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL68CA009923BACBEE&feature=plcp
A "practical" response to such questions would be to ignore them.
Way ahead of you
Atta boy.
KanzarisKelshen posted...
Incorrect. The heart of practicality is optimization of resources. One resource is our creativity, which is limited by our conception of reality. A less than perfect conception of reality will yield less than perfect fruits. So setting aside a portion of humanity to investigate these questions is in fact a smart move.
You seem to be approaching this topic from the mind of some SimCity player, where we need to make sure a certain percentage of the population is tackling some particular aim (here, philosophical problems). That's fine. It's also not really relevant.
Why wouldn't we, though? Think about it for a second. It's an intellectually stimulating pursuit, that just so happens to benefit everybody else in the long run. What downside is there to making sure some people take the bait?
I completely agree that the some of the degrees/job aspirations are stupid to put it bluntly. I mean I have a Social Science degree, and when people asked what I majored in, I say "Social Science, because I hate money." I'm fully aware that the frame my degree is in out values the actual degree. If you get a bachelors in PAINTING and are astounded you can't find work, I'm astounded you don't drown in the shower.
There were also those in that story that had legitimate beef: anyone with an MBA or a PhD in anything has beef. That guy working construction with a PhD in Industrial Chemistry or whatever is a champion for. It killing himself. But if you have a bachelors in liberal arts, shut up. In the business world you basically have a really expensive and slightly more prestigious high school diploma.
Oh and I minored in philosophy, and I'll tell you that having professors that know philosophy is WAY better than learning it on your own or through some secondary subject. It's really easy to "philosophy wrong" and professors are great at being able to steer you in the right direction, and even help you skip over common mistakes that most people including themselves made. I mean 10 weeks from a philosophy doctor in a the subject of your choice, or trying to do it on your own? I don't understand why philosophy is suddenly different than any other subject when it comes to how to learn it. No one studies Sociology on their own and claims to be an expert. Philosophy PhDs basically have no choice but to go into academics, so why not get lessons from the best there are out there?
--
Viviff on the go! (or from the toilet) http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/board8/images/8/8b/ViviffChampS1.jpg
Why wouldn't we, though? Think about it for a second. It's an intellectually stimulating pursuit, that just so happens to benefit everybody else in the long run. What downside is there to making sure some people take the bait?
The bolded part is tangential. If philosophy is concerned with truth for truth's sake, then whether or not the truth benefits society is a separate issue. For the record, I happen to agree with you about philosophy's social value (although my stance is more nuanced; not everyone can or should "handle" philosophy).
ViviffTheMobile posted...
Oh and I minored in philosophy, and I'll tell you that having professors that know philosophy is WAY better than learning it on your own or through some secondary subject. It's really easy to "philosophy wrong" and professors are great at being able to steer you in the right direction, and even help you skip over common mistakes that most people including themselves made. I mean 10 weeks from a philosophy doctor in a the subject of your choice, or trying to do it on your own? I don't understand why philosophy is suddenly different than any other subject when it comes to how to learn it. No one studies Sociology on their own and claims to be an expert. Philosophy PhDs basically have no choice but to go into academics, so why not get lessons from the best there are out there?
You put it about a hundred times better than I could! I feel that philosophy suffers the same fate as subjects like English and politics: unlike, say, physics, which has clear intellectual barriers to entry, philosophy is one of those things people believe they have a "right" to do well without any formal training. It's the same reason every other Joe Schmo feels the need to talk politics with the pretensions of an expert.
-- Fire Emblem: Awakening has the best music ever. Listen to it \/ http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL68CA009923BACBEE&feature=plcp
Why wouldn't we, though? Think about it for a second. It's an intellectually stimulating pursuit, that just so happens to benefit everybody else in the long run. What downside is there to making sure some people take the bait?
The bolded part is tangential. If philosophy is concerned with truth for truth's sake, then whether or not the truth benefits society is a separate issue. For the record, I happen to agree with you about philosophy's social value (although my stance is more nuanced; not everyone can or should "handle" philosophy).
Let's clarify something - by everyone, do you mean 'every last person on earth', or 'every person in a position where philosophy has major rewards'? Because as a rule, for the latter group of people, philosophy is something they benefit from quite a bit.
As for the rest...really, would it matter if it had no benefits? Games have no benefits, but they make us smarter, happier, or both. The study of anything is a game, so long as you enjoy it.
Philosophy is probably the most important field of study for learning how to think critically and independently (every university should have at least three philosophy prerequisites imo), but it's also one of THE best majors for going on into law. Law being very lucrative. So it's not useless at all!
Well of course I know this (how could I avoid the constant "what're you gonna do with that?" questions). I should've added "by itself" and "pragmatically."
Mah B.
Also I totes haven't read this topic so if that's been covered then ignore me I guess.
That guy working construction with a PhD in Industrial Chemistry or whatever is a champion for. It killing himself.
Yeah, I did feel kinda bad for that guy, but you have to remember, like I said, the education markets and the labor markets are NOT necessarily connected in any meaningful way. There are bound to be some occupations where the labor supply exceeds the demand. In those occupations, there will necessarily be some perfectly educated and qualified individuals who cannot find employment in that occupation. This will be true in free labor markets, always, recession or no. The only "solution" to that is a Soviet style system where the government tells you what your job is going to be.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
don't worry Muffin we're slowly getting rid of those jobs. you think what we do with warehouses is nuts, you just wait.
Hey, don't mistake me as a Luddite who opposes technology. I leave that to the keynesians. I'd be totally fine with finding a way to automate McDonalds, but until we do, there's no shame in working at one.
yes there is. there's a reason it pays minimum wage. your salary is reflective of what you are worth to society, mcdonalds employees are worth basically nothing.
It is worth noting that those that have a degree is psychology and are working at McDonalds most likely deserve to be there.
Psychology is an extremely competitive field and almost all of the good jobs require advanced degrees, a lot of work, and a high level of intellect. Those that stopped after getting just their Bachelors most likely either: A) Were not good enough in comparison to their peers B) Lacked the motivation to do the extra five+ years of training required to get into the field C) Were never really serious about their area of study
I'm sure the other areas listed are like that too, but I know that is true for psychology because I have a lot of friends in that field. It isn't that their time was necessarily a waste or anything like that, but instead that those who were competing against them in the same field are just better than they are. It might be a little sad for the individual if they feel like they've wasted those years of their life, but to change the system somehow would just be rewarding mediocrity. Those that are good in psychology get good jobs in psychology. Those that aren't end up working in other fields (and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that).
-- Moops? "I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."
I'm sure the other areas listed are like that too, but I know that is true for psychology because I have a lot of friends in that field. It isn't that their time was necessarily a waste or anything like that, but instead that those who were competing against them in the same field are just better than they are. It might be a little sad for the individual if they feel like they've wasted those years of their life, but to change the system somehow would just be rewarding mediocrity. Those that are good in psychology get good jobs in psychology. Those that aren't end up working in other fields (and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that).
This is a great post. Basically a nicer version of what I'm trying to say :)
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
The dumbest thing about psych majoring is its the most common degree out there. Not only is it a field that requires (usually) at the very least a Masters to do anything, but you've also got more people with your useless degree than any other. So when you jump out into the world with your BA in Psychology, you should be ready to get smacked down hard by the world. There should be a 2 day class prerequisite for psych. majors about how their degree is useless outside of getting into grad school.
--
Viviff on the go! (or from the toilet) http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/board8/images/8/8b/ViviffChampS1.jpg
I'm not even sure what he meant by that. He's completely misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that philosophy is unimportant. Just that food is MORE important. I certainly never expected that to be a controversial statement, but this place always tends to surprise me by what it does and does not consider controversial...
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
I don't think he is saying that philosophy is an unnecessary major, just that for the most part if you get that degree, don't expect to get a great job and certainly not one that uses your degree. a few people will, but most won't
I think the real issue is not that we need to artificially create demand for the degrees people are getting, or eliminate degrees that are less marketable, but that we need to create more realistic expectations for what a given degree is actually worth. The tragedy is not that these people have crummy jobs, but that they were led to believe they were working towards a goal that wasn't really within reach.
-- SuperNiceDog didn't have to reconcile his name... But Dauntless Hunter is now MrGreenonion
What we need are more people going to tech schools. If 50% of the people getting psych degrees, and other common, overpopulated majors (*cough*englishandcommunications*cough*) went to learn a trade instead (electrician, plumber, chef, AC repair, etc), I think the job market would be better off. I mean, at this point going into school for just a 4 year diploma isn't gonna help much unless you're in a tech field, or maybe math and some science. Everyone else is gonna need more time to either go into something like law or medicine, or end up getting the lowest possible wage job that has a "4-year degree" requirement.
I mean, everyone I know who got a 4-year degree within the past decade or so either is getting or has got even higher education, or is currently working at a restaurant/retail. Honestly, the most successful person I can think of who is in their twenties is my former manager at Blockbuster, who didn't go to college, instead choosing the army, then managed to become a manager by 24, and lives very comfortably in a house that he owns with his wife and kid, and has plenty of money for things like 3DTVs or cool tech stuff like that. The previous generation far overvalues a college degree, because everyone was able to get one at a much fairer rate than we are able to now, so it wasn't a $100,000 proposition to get a 4 year degree. If you know how to work it, or are smart/good enough, it still isn't, but most people don't/aren't.
Yeah I think the thing is a lot of people are misled into thinking college is the goal, but nowadays it's more often a stepping-stone the same way high school is. You're much better off going to a relatively inexpensive state school for undergrad, and leaving the expensive schooling for your postgraduate studies.
-- SuperNiceDog didn't have to reconcile his name... But Dauntless Hunter is now MrGreenonion
I do think, beyond the classroom education aspect of college, there are tons of opportunities to learn a huge variety of things at a college (a big one, not community college or anything) that can be extremely valuable. Mostly on the social side of things, but most people underestimate the value of things like networking and such. My current job is the first job I've ever had, and I got it purely out of virtue of going to my current school. I had no experience at all, but the fact that I am a student here was enough to land me an interview, which led to a well-paying, full-time, challenging and interesting job that directly pertains to and will help me reach my future desired career. It would've been impossible to find such a job without college.
I do think, beyond the classroom education aspect of college, there are tons of opportunities to learn a huge variety of things at a college (a big one, not community college or anything) that can be extremely valuable. Mostly on the social side of things, but most people underestimate the value of things like networking and such. My current job is the first job I've ever had, and I got it purely out of virtue of going to my current school. I had no experience at all, but the fact that I am a student here was enough to land me an interview, which led to a well-paying, full-time, challenging and interesting job that directly pertains to and will help me reach my future desired career. It would've been impossible to find such a job without college.
Well, apparently that didn't work for the Polish dude who is working at McDonalds now.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Karl Moi Okoth, a 27 year-old vegetable and fruit seller, in front of his makeshift shop in Nairobi's Kibera slum in the Kenyan capital, on April 30, 2012. Okoth studied psychology and chemistry at Day Star University where he received a degree in psychology.
this one amused me - guess he wasn't good enough to get a chemistry degree, huh ---
Personal responsibility? What are you, some kind of mentally deranged Ayn Rand fan or something???
You're half right... eh, screw it, you're fully right
From: Mr Lasastryke | #097
Colleges can but not always provide opportunities, just like they can but not always provide jobs.
My point is that it can NEVER provide a job. It ONLY provides opportunities. If you get a degree, then sit quietly in your room waiting for you to magically have a career, it's never going to happen. The most you can ever expect from others is an opportunity, and it's perfectly okay to EXPECT an opportunity and be disappointed when you don't get one, but to expect a job is often asking more of yourself than you are willing to give.
-- _foolmo_ 'It's easy to get yourself in trouble if you start quoting people who don't like you in your signature' - Mods