A Philosophy Degree - Who needs it?

[DarkWaters]

there's University of California, York (Canada), Columbia New York and Illinois.

Do any of you guys know anything about these places?

Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania are definitely some of the highest ranked institutions in the United States. Although these rankings are largely based on research and grants, you will still be surrounded by a large population of intelligent and ambitious undergraduates if you choose to study at either place.

Objectivist intellectual John Ridpath is a retired professor of intellectual history at York University in Canada. It is too bad that you probably would not be able to interact with him if you went there.

The University of California at Berkeley and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champlain are also highly regarded universities. As you probably know, the University of California at Irvine is very close to the Ayn Rand Institute. If you are at all interested, I recommend getting in touch with ARI to see if there are any possibilities that you could be involved with them during your study abroad.

[yoni]

I'm considering philosophy major in combination with my degree, just to improve my expression and the opportunity to discuss abstractions with other people interested in the same but having recently looked into OAC, I think it may be the better option.

[themadkat]

I minored in Philosophy in addition to my Biology degree. That worked out pretty well.

[Breschau]

So, let's just jump right in here. If one is a student of Objectivism, what reason is there to study Philosophy at university? I mean, surely, if you have the great fortune of finding an Objectivist tutor or professor, then he can challenge you and teach you in great depth about Objectivism. But, the fact is, that subjectivism and the kind of philosophy taught these days appears to be rife with, "Well, geez, we may never know the answers! Well, hand in your tests".

I mean, it's a mixed bag really. I guess I can just stick to studying Philosophy of Mind and aesthetics, maybe Philosophy and Science too. I'll steer clear of ethics though, and leave that to the autodidact in me. But then, that's just the thing:

Why study philosophy, if you're an Objectivist? Surely after comprehensive induction and reading of Objectivist philosophy, you're ready to face the big, wide world. I mean, once you fully comprehend the meaning of the axioms, then everything starts to flow from that, no?

The pursuit of knowledge is an end in itself. If you are curious and want to, there is no reason not to.

[EC]

The pursuit of knowledge is an end in itself. If you are curious and want to, there is no reason not to.

Wrong. To persue knowledge with no intend on using it ever for some productive use is pointless.

[Benpercent]

The pursuit of knowledge is an end in itself. If you are curious and want to, there is no reason not to.

As EC said, this is incorrect. Going about it this way will sooner or later drain one's motivation completely. In fact, this is one of leading problems with education: Teachers don't provide the answer to the "Why?" of learning, which is "Why should we learn this?" To worsen things, I've heard some teachers answer "I have no idea just do it."

[Breschau]

As EC said, this is incorrect. Going about it this way will sooner or later drain one's motivation completely. In fact, this is one of leading problems with education: Teachers don't provide the answer to the "Why?" of learning, which is "Why should we learn this?" To worsen things, I've heard some teachers answer "I have no idea just do it."

Good philosophy teacher put the information before you and help you to interpret it. Bad philo teachers just leave you with riddles. Good teachers know what they are doing and why. Bad teachers know neither.

Education is and end in itself as it teaches you how to live life. As Rand said...

The only purpose of education is to teach a student how to live his life—by developing his mind and equipping him to deal with reality. The training he needs is theoretical, i.e., conceptual. He has to be taught to think, to understand, to integrate, to prove. He has to be taught the essentials of the knowledge discovered in the past—and he has to be equipped to acquire further knowledge by his own effort.

With someone there to mentor and help you find knowledge it's much easier than going it alone.

OP: Honestly look into an education, if you don't like what you see, or don't think it's useful for you, then don't do it. Despite the party line, any higher degree will help improve your life in the long run over only having a high school education.

[adrock3215]

Despite the party line, any higher degree will help improve your life in the long run over only having a high school education.

What are you talking about? Do you have any objective evidence of this? Perhaps you meant to say: "Despite the party line, I have found that a higher degree improved my life in the long run over only having a high school education."

Edited June 26, 2008 by adrock3215

[Benpercent]

Education is and end in itself as it teaches you how to live life. As Rand said...

The former sentence has an inter-contradiction in it, and the quote you posted in the latter disagrees with your point rather than strengthening it. For an education to be "an end in itself" you would just have to learn for the sake of learning, and not use the knowledge gained. It's like going to a garage sale to buy expensive furniture you'll never sit on. Using your education to help you live would mean that an education would not be an end in itself, but rather an application to one's life.

[JASKN]

Despite the party line, any higher degree will help improve your life in the long run over only having a high school education.

What are you talking about? Do you have any objective evidence of this? Perhaps you meant to say: "Despite the party line, I have found that a higher degree improved my life in the long run over only having a high school education."

adrock is right, Breschau. Consider a man who loves to work on cars, and is better at it than anything else. Should he pursue a college degree? There are thousands of careers like that. Or perhaps you were referring only to a philosophy degree?

However, I disagree here:

To persue knowledge with no intend on using it ever for some productive use is pointless.

If a man is already pursuing a career in a field of his dreams, an education can certainly be an end in itself. Perhaps the man simply likes knowing about things because it gives him pleasure, or it makes what he already knows and is interested in so much more interesting. An education can be applied to one's career (productive life), or it can have other purposes. Maybe I am learning about jets because my brother is joining the Airforce. Maybe I need to learn a particular recipe to impress a particular date this weekend. Or, maybe I am just curious about the history of China. An education need not be confined to the purpose of productive work.

[eriatarka]

adrock is right, Breschau. Consider a man who loves to work on cars, and is better at it than anything else. Should he pursue a college degree? There are thousands of careers like that. Or perhaps you were referring only to a philosophy degree?

I think this contradicts the later part of your post - you seem to be saying here that a college degree is only useful if it helps with a career, while the later part of your post denies that. I dont think your man should necessarily pursue a college degree, but I do think his life would probably be enriched by a study of the liberal arts in general.

University study isnt really directly about a 'career' anyway - that wasnt the aim historically, and even today most people wont get a job related to their undergrad discipline (unless they stay on for post-graduate study). A man may not need any academic study to work on cars, but his entire being isnt defined by his being a mechanic and theres going to be a lot of hours in the day where he isnt working on cars. The historical aim of university study was to create well-rounded integrated people, not as some kind of vocational qualification to help them get a job. This has been somewhat corrupted over the last 100 years though, which I think is a shame.

Edited June 27, 2008 by eriatarka

[JASKN]

I think this contradicts the later part of your post - you seem to be saying here that a college degree is only useful if it helps with a career, while the later part of your post denies that.

That wasn't my intent, so I'll try to clarify.

I was first talking about a college degree in relation to one's career, which is one purpose for pursuing an education (used broadly to include individual study or college instruction). Then, I was talking about an education (which could include college) not related to one's career (that is, productive work), and several reasons one might choose to do that.

[adrock3215]

It is a widespread mistake that is totally unfounded to equate 'education' with 'college degree'. Only after seperating the two concepts into what they are, as JASKN did, is a discussion possible.

[EC]

However, I disagree here:

If a man is already pursuing a career in a field of his dreams, an education can certainly be an end in itself. Perhaps the man simply likes knowing about things because it gives him pleasure, or it makes what he already knows and is interested in so much more interesting. An education can be applied to one's career (productive life), or it can have other purposes. Maybe I am learning about jets because my brother is joining the Airforce. Maybe I need to learn a particular recipe to impress a particular date this weekend. Or, maybe I am just curious about the history of China. An education need not be confined to the purpose of productive work.

Yeah, I was wrong here. I study all kinds of subjects all the time just because I want to know as much as I can about--everthing. This guy just had me on tilt a bit yesterday, and I think I responded without fully considering what I was saying. However I still thing knowledge should be put to use whenever possible, while it's cool to know the answers to most things, putting that knowledge to practical use is the ultimate goal when feasable.

[Tenure]

So, I've kind of started University now. Lots of people, some interesting, many not, but, you know, I'm just digging around to find interesting people and just trying to be sociable. I've had a few introductory things to the actual course itself and it seems pretty good so far. The lecturer was talking about how the Philosophy department believes it is most important that you develop your skills at thinking properly and critically about the material you're dealing with, rather than remembering it by rote - which is always nice.

No sign of great intellectual corruption just yet or anything like that just yet, but a lot of people who don't really know why they are doing their course and don't seem that interested in being here to study.

Edited October 15, 2008 by Tenure

[Tenure]

So, now my studies begin, I'm understanding the value of a Philosophy degree. It helps to tie down the floating abstraction of Objectivism in your brain. By dealing with all the issues, problems and quandaries of Philosophy that Objectivism answers (the nature of causality; inductive reasoning; the fact-value gap; etc etc) one is forced to really address these statements and consider exactly what they say - and why they are wrong. Yes, you may know most people say this, and Rand said that, and in a deductive argument, Rand wins. But if someone clever enough comes along, that rationalisation falls down.

A Philosophy degree forces you to face not just the conclusions, but the arguments themselves, the whole progression of the argument from premises to conclusion. You have to really check their premises and really think about what they are saying and why it is important and not just 'What Rand said'. I'm sure someone else can put it more eloquently than me, but that's what I've learned so far.