3 ms·

Actually, my statement was value neutral - at least in the scope of its paragraph. All I am saying is that someone trained to do X while hating X is bound to ha

Actually, my statement was value neutral - at least in the scope of its paragraph. All I am saying is that someone trained to do X while hating X is bound to hate their job. Hating one's job means you are not incentivized to perform it well - ergo, to an external eye, "incompetent." But incompetence is a lot harder to catch without something like a failed bridge collapsing. I would not reverse my position with your counterexample - to make it perfectly analogous, it would mean that someone who wanted to be an engineer is forced to study philosophy instead, all while wanting to come back to engineering. I would argue that this person is likely to publish some very mediocre papers, then will be very unlikely to get tenure, and will certainly not become the next Jean Baudrillard. So yes, they would make an incompetent philosopher, and they would likely be pushed out of the academic community given the publish-or-perish model.

ggggtez 6y ago
This argument doesn't seem consistent with the idea that college should not be just a path for job readiness. If the purpose of a philosophy degree is to create philosophers, then we rightly should be subsidizing the education of those degrees which society demands (engineers/nurses/tech/etc). You need to take an entirely different argument to say that society should subsidize philosophers despite the market demand. The argument exists, and many people have made it. I personally do believe that higher education is good for society as a whole. So why not let those people who are getting an education for the purpose of simply being educated (rather than obtaining a job) be encouraged to learn a way of looking at the world through the lens of science? Just like philosophers, there is no guarantee they will actually do anything with such a degree. But the scientific lens that they learn will affect the way they understand the world around them, and that can surely be a good thing.

ggggtez 6y ago

This argument doesn't seem consistent with the idea that college should not be just a path for job readiness. If the purpose of a philosophy degree is to create philosophers, then we rightly should be subsidizing the education of those degrees which society demands (engineers/nurses/tech/etc). You need to take an entirely different argument to say that society should subsidize philosophers despite the market demand. The argument exists, and many people have made it. I personally do believe that higher education is good for society as a whole. So why not let those people who are getting an education for the purpose of simply being educated (rather than obtaining a job) be encouraged to learn a way of looking at the world through the lens of science? Just like philosophers, there is no guarantee they will actually do anything with such a degree. But the scientific lens that they learn will affect the way they understand the world around them, and that can surely be a good thing.