Goddàjen

[Maruku]

Hey PN forumers,

I happened to find myself here after following a few links from googling "Sapere Aude". It was an article by Anja Steinbauer which caught my interest.

I often read the Philosophy Now magazines in my college's library. I'm not particularly fond of these sorts of journals in general (I find that they tend to promote a slap dash approach for people wanting to publish writings concerning philosophy) but there have been some enjoyable articles, such as the use of Socratic questioning in modern life, and the 2 part Daniel Dennet autobiography was very readable.

I only post on a private forum, deep in the 2-3,000th pages of most search engines, so this is quite new for me, to be on a more widely accessible forum. I hope it's fun, and I hope you're all good, engaging thinkers!

Since I'm here, can I ask who among you takes philosophy at University? I'm being pressured to decide on a subject to take in 17 or so months time. If any of you take it, can you confirm its worth it?

[mickthinks]

Welcome to the circus, Maruku! I hope you enjoy our clowning and can find a pair of baggy pants to suit you.

Philosophy is 'worth' studying in every sense except the financial one. Not only is there no way to make money as a philosopher*, but prospective employers have been known to discriminate against applicants who have philosophy degrees.

Mick
*teaching excepted, but that's no path to riches either.

[Rortabend]

teaching excepted, but that's no path to riches either.

Thomas Kuhn had a Ferrari!

[mickthinks]

And a fine philosopher like you will know how weak a counter-argument that is!

[Rortabend]

And a fine philosopher like you will know how weak a counter-argument that is!

An exception that proves the rule perhaps. Having said this, if you get tenure in the US then you could be looking at a six-figure salary (in dollars). If you figure in the amount of time off you get I think this represents financial success.

[mickthinks]

One can do worse than go into teaching, certainly. But a profession in which the top rank is on $100 000 seems pretty modest by comparison with most other fields a graduate might enter.

[Rortabend]

Agreed. However, getting good graduate jobs often depends on extra-curricular activities and the standard of university you went to rather than subject studied. There are plenty of City boys earning ridiculous amounts of money who studied philosophy or English at uni. I suspect that postgraduate study in any humanities or social science subject reduces your earning power. However, if you're the sort of person who is obsessed with material wealth then you're hardly likely to choose to be a student for 7-10 years. Part of the value of studying something like philosophy is that it shows there are other ways of measuring 'worth' than purely financial ones.

[mickthinks]

Yes, and I reckon having higher values than money makes you a poor fit for senior management in most businesses.

[Rortabend]

Yes, and I reckon having higher values than money makes you a poor fit for senior management in most businesses.

Isn't the cause of the current mess we're in that senior managers, bankers and executives didn't have any higher values than profit? Many models of successful business practice now emphasise the importance of responsible capitalism. See, for example, the rise of disciplines like business ethics, CSR and stakeholder theory.

[bus2bondi]

hi Maraku,

I'm not particularly fond of these sorts of journals in general (I find that they tend to promote a slap dash approach for people wanting to publish writings concerning philosophy)

i've always felt the same way, and i doubt you are, but i am also anti-article in general. I have some sort of deep aversion to them. well nice to meet you

[Maruku]

Thanks for the replies Mick, Rotrabend. I'm not so much concerned about the money or job prospects as I am about the scope of Philosophy's future. It seems like all the water has been collected from philosophy's well, if you follow my meaning. Say I wanted to delve into a field that is open to progress: would philosophy be the best choice?

I used to have an aversion to reading philosophy all together bus2bond! I've pretty much dropped that attitude over the past year to read Plato, Nietzsche and Ray Monk's biography on Wittgenstein (if you want to call that philosophy). I really admire a lot of what they wrote, but I can't help but feel I've taken a shortcut on discovering the types of thoughts they each developed. I feel a lazy thinker in other words. Do you ever get that after reading a work of philosophy?

[mickthinks]

Philosophy is not a good choice for a field open to progress. That is not to deny that progress is possible, but it will always be the halting, two steps forward one and a half steps back kind, which will be frustrating for those who are 'driven'.

I think of it more as tending the gardens of shared understanding. At the end of her career, a gardener doesn't look at her beautifully tended lawns and borders, arbours and vistas, and feel a failure because next year the same weeds will need to be pulled and the same seeds will need to be sown.

Mick

[RachelAnn]

Mickthinks:

Philosophy is not a good choice for a field open to progress.

There is irony in that insight.

[Nikolai]

At the end of her career, a gardener doesn't look at her beautifully tended lawns and borders, arbours and vistas, and feel a failure because next year the same weeds will need to be pulled and the same seeds will need to be sown.

No, but if a new weed sprung up, hydra like, for every one pulled then she might start to despair. This is the true state of philosophy.

[mickthinks]

You may think so, but I reckon that is just your phobosophy.