4 ms·

> For some of us philosophy majors, we are just genuinely curious about some notions in life that are often taken for granted. For instance, is our ability to h

> For some of us philosophy majors, we are just genuinely curious about some notions in life that are often taken for granted. For instance, is our ability to have rational thought just a product of our brainwaves, the interaction of different neurotransmitters? Or is there something more going on, something "supernatural" that allowed humans the capacity for rational dialogue? What a shame a philosophy education confers no ability to address such a question meaningfully.

pmoriarty 10y ago
Whether it does or it doesn't is itself a philosophical question. If you are interested in that question, you are interested in philosophy. The same goes for a lot of other questions that people might not at first blush consider philosophical questions, such as most any questions containing the word "should". I've found it interesting to see what extreme negative reactions a lot of people have to the very idea of studying philosophy or even being interested in philosophical questions. They're really outraged and think it's a complete waste of time, usually not realizing how much of what they believe and of the world around them has been and continues to be shaped by philosophy and philosophers.
- Gracana 10y ago
  I think that was intended to be a jab at the author/article.
- panic 10y ago
  It's possible to be interested in philosophy while criticizing the field as it is taught. If you want to know how and whether the workings of the brain can produce rational thought, you'd be better off pursuing a neuroscience education.
  - pmoriarty 10y ago
    > It's possible to be interested in philosophy while criticizing the field as it is taught. Absolutely. Criticism of philosophy is itself usually a philosophical undertaking. > If you want to know how and whether the workings of the brain can produce rational thought, you'd be better off pursuing a neuroscience education. That's a philosophical position, and very open to debate.
- parennoob 10y ago
  Well, I think some part of the negative reactions stem from the fact that the scope of philosophy is incredibly narrow these days, and largely limited to speculative analyses. For example, experiments that detect electro-chemical impulses in the brain and compare them during various moods would classically have been squarely in the center of a philosopher's work. But today, they are part of biology, or psychology, or some other science that has split away from what was once philosophy. As a result, (referring to the original example), literally "Whether it does or it doesn't" is the only problem that is under the aegis of philosophy -- everything else has been delegated to some science or the other.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- hosh 10y ago
  I've been enjoying these comments, particularly the ones by pmoriarty. I'm not really adding anything meaningful here: I used to have a negative reaction to philosophy. Somewhere in the past few years as I was getting into my mid-30s, I've been finding myself studying it more. I will say though, I'm approaching philosophy from Eastern studies. It's my understanding that a philosophy degree in an American university is heavily focused on Western philosophy. I know nearly nothing about Western philosophy (that is, nothing more than the average Joe on the street). However, whenever I read something written by people who are trained in philosophy, I marvel at the clarity of the writing, even if I don't always agree with them.
  - pmoriarty 10y ago
    Thank you for your kind words. I have a great interest in Eastern philosophy, and think it undeservedly gets very short shrift in Western universities. That seems to be getting somewhat better in modern times, however, as common ground is discovered between Eastern and Western philosophy, and it's beginning to be recognized how much the former has influenced the latter and how much more there is to learn.
- aidenn0 10y ago
  A lot of philosophy departments are very poor[1] (nothing surprising here, a lot of CS departments are also very poor). On top of that, it seems to me that, at least outside the most prestigious schools (e.g. Ivy's), philosophy departments at schools with respected CS programs, are even less likely to be high quality. This is exacerbated when you compare the quality of the CS program to the quality of the philosophy program, since we are already talking about schools with quality CS programs. This means that the average HNer likely went to a school where the quality of the philosophy department is much lower than the CS department. So when an HNer says "A philosophy education sucks" they really mean "A poor philosophy education is worse than a quality CS education" This is exacerbated by the fact that the first several philosophy courses one might take typically focus on gaining a groundwork in philosophy. It's not unlike someone finishing elementary school thinking math is just boring arithmetic. At the school I went to, the smartest student in a philosophy class was typically an engineering dropout, and the intellectual rigor of the classes was poor because they weren't allowed to fail 50% of the students (unlike engineering, where that fraction would be high, but not eyebrow raising). For most of the time I was an undergrad, I thought that all philosophy majors were less intelligent than STEM majors and philosophy was not at all intellectually rigorous. 1: When I say "poor" I am being a bit vague, but consider it a qualitative mix of the faculty, curriculum, and students. Of course these 3 things are very closely interrelated as curriculum difficulty is adjusted to the level of the students, faculty has some control over the curriculum, and having quality faculty and curriculum will attract better students.
ubernostrum 10y ago
What a shame a philosophy education confers no ability to address such a question meaningfully. The counterpoint, of course, is that over the course of human history, philosophy has a better track record than anything else at producing fruitful inquiry and results. It's just that the results always end up branded as entirely new fields of study, meaning that what's left in the "philosophy" bucket is the stuff which hasn't yet been productive enough to spawn an entire separate field.
dghf 10y ago
This kind of speculation is hardly the preserve of philosophy students, either. It has to be one of the top 10 topics of drunken (and stoned) conversations among undergraduates of all disciplines.

pmoriarty 10y ago

Whether it does or it doesn't is itself a philosophical question. If you are interested in that question, you are interested in philosophy. The same goes for a lot of other questions that people might not at first blush consider philosophical questions, such as most any questions containing the word "should". I've found it interesting to see what extreme negative reactions a lot of people have to the very idea of studying philosophy or even being interested in philosophical questions. They're really outraged and think it's a complete waste of time, usually not realizing how much of what they believe and of the world around them has been and continues to be shaped by philosophy and philosophers.

Gracana 10y ago
I think that was intended to be a jab at the author/article.
panic 10y ago
It's possible to be interested in philosophy while criticizing the field as it is taught. If you want to know how and whether the workings of the brain can produce rational thought, you'd be better off pursuing a neuroscience education.
- pmoriarty 10y ago
  > It's possible to be interested in philosophy while criticizing the field as it is taught. Absolutely. Criticism of philosophy is itself usually a philosophical undertaking. > If you want to know how and whether the workings of the brain can produce rational thought, you'd be better off pursuing a neuroscience education. That's a philosophical position, and very open to debate.
parennoob 10y ago
Well, I think some part of the negative reactions stem from the fact that the scope of philosophy is incredibly narrow these days, and largely limited to speculative analyses. For example, experiments that detect electro-chemical impulses in the brain and compare them during various moods would classically have been squarely in the center of a philosopher's work. But today, they are part of biology, or psychology, or some other science that has split away from what was once philosophy. As a result, (referring to the original example), literally "Whether it does or it doesn't" is the only problem that is under the aegis of philosophy -- everything else has been delegated to some science or the other.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
hosh 10y ago
I've been enjoying these comments, particularly the ones by pmoriarty. I'm not really adding anything meaningful here: I used to have a negative reaction to philosophy. Somewhere in the past few years as I was getting into my mid-30s, I've been finding myself studying it more. I will say though, I'm approaching philosophy from Eastern studies. It's my understanding that a philosophy degree in an American university is heavily focused on Western philosophy. I know nearly nothing about Western philosophy (that is, nothing more than the average Joe on the street). However, whenever I read something written by people who are trained in philosophy, I marvel at the clarity of the writing, even if I don't always agree with them.
- pmoriarty 10y ago
  Thank you for your kind words. I have a great interest in Eastern philosophy, and think it undeservedly gets very short shrift in Western universities. That seems to be getting somewhat better in modern times, however, as common ground is discovered between Eastern and Western philosophy, and it's beginning to be recognized how much the former has influenced the latter and how much more there is to learn.
aidenn0 10y ago
A lot of philosophy departments are very poor[1] (nothing surprising here, a lot of CS departments are also very poor). On top of that, it seems to me that, at least outside the most prestigious schools (e.g. Ivy's), philosophy departments at schools with respected CS programs, are even less likely to be high quality. This is exacerbated when you compare the quality of the CS program to the quality of the philosophy program, since we are already talking about schools with quality CS programs. This means that the average HNer likely went to a school where the quality of the philosophy department is much lower than the CS department. So when an HNer says "A philosophy education sucks" they really mean "A poor philosophy education is worse than a quality CS education" This is exacerbated by the fact that the first several philosophy courses one might take typically focus on gaining a groundwork in philosophy. It's not unlike someone finishing elementary school thinking math is just boring arithmetic. At the school I went to, the smartest student in a philosophy class was typically an engineering dropout, and the intellectual rigor of the classes was poor because they weren't allowed to fail 50% of the students (unlike engineering, where that fraction would be high, but not eyebrow raising). For most of the time I was an undergrad, I thought that all philosophy majors were less intelligent than STEM majors and philosophy was not at all intellectually rigorous. 1: When I say "poor" I am being a bit vague, but consider it a qualitative mix of the faculty, curriculum, and students. Of course these 3 things are very closely interrelated as curriculum difficulty is adjusted to the level of the students, faculty has some control over the curriculum, and having quality faculty and curriculum will attract better students.

ubernostrum 10y ago

What a shame a philosophy education confers no ability to address such a question meaningfully. The counterpoint, of course, is that over the course of human history, philosophy has a better track record than anything else at producing fruitful inquiry and results. It's just that the results always end up branded as entirely new fields of study, meaning that what's left in the "philosophy" bucket is the stuff which hasn't yet been productive enough to spawn an entire separate field.

dghf 10y ago

This kind of speculation is hardly the preserve of philosophy students, either. It has to be one of the top 10 topics of drunken (and stoned) conversations among undergraduates of all disciplines.