A Philosophy Degree - Who needs it?

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 applied and got in to the University of York (here in England, not the Canadian one) to study Philosophy, before I began reading Objectivism. Going through the main tutors there:

>The head of Metaphysics is doing a lot of research into what he calls ‘metaphysical nihilism’

>The department for ‘Philosophy of Mind’ is full of some very dapper gentlemen; experts in Aristotle, Wittgenstein and the likes. There’s even a guy who’s researching how the law of causality works in the mind, and the rules which dictate the consciousness.

>The Aesthetics guy seems… nice.

>The ethics professor, from Princeton, seems pretty ambiguous in his ideas from what I can tell, although he seems to favour normative ethics, realism and is working on a paper entitled ‘Desiring the Truth and Nothing But the Truth’. Nothing immediately leaps out about him being too great.

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?

If one is a student of Objectivism, what reason is there to study Philosophy at university?

What point is there in studying anything at university for oodles of $$ if you think you can learn it on your own? Street (i.e. academic world) cred is probably the top reason. A university-educated philosopher is simply going to be taken more seriously by the majority of folks than a man with the same philosophical ideas who didn’t waste time on the B.S.

Why study philosophy, if you’re an Objectivist?

If you want to be a philosopher, IMO it’s best to put your ideas to more stringent scrutiny by analyzing the criticisms/alternatives that non-Objectivists may have. On the other hand, if you want to be an Objectivist (and don’t care what other philosophers have to say), there probably isn’t a point to studying non-Objectivist philosophy. Either way, there are a lot of valuable nuances and philosophic subtleties you discover by broadening your philosophical horizons (even if it means enduring some philosophical garbage in the process.)

One of my majors in college will be philosophy. The main reason I have chosen to study philosophy at an academic level is to fully understand the other schools of thought. I (mainly) understand Objectivism, but I am not very adept at defending it against other schools of thought when arguing with someone who knows philosophy at an academic level. I have the basic idea of how things should be, but sometimes I have trouble articulating my point or isolating the other side’s fundamentals. For these reasons, I want to study other schools of thought first-hand, so I am assured I am being taught what they really mean and that I can reject them for the proper reasons and prove to myself that the Objectivist way is truly the right way to think.

I anticipate my classes becoming frustrating sometimes because of all the nonsense that will probably be taught. But I truly believe that philosophy is an extremely important subject, and I am interested in it in general. I find it important to know how others think to arm myself against moral ineptitude and recognize fundamentals immediately. I think these, in turn, will sharpen my argumentative skills and make me a better and more confident Objectivist.

You see, the thing is though, I was thinking roughly the same lines. I would love to be a strong, confident Objectivist. But the thing is, I know Objectivism is right. I don’t know its every application for every situation, but the axioms and fundamentals are so immutably correct that I can’t imagine I should near to care about why other people hold the delusions they do.

I don’t want to sound like some stuck-up twat or anything, I’m just saying - I shouldn’t take a degree to intellectually arm myself against others. That presupposes that my life should be some conflict of philosophies, constantly having to deal with all the moral subjectivists and the like. I don’t mean I won’t have to deal with them, I just mean I don’t think I should maintain as my focus the idea that I should have to accept their thinking on any level.

Well, I plan on majoring in philosophy because I know I will probably take enough classes in it to qualify to major in it. If I am only a couple classes short, I will probably take the extra classes just to qualify for a major in philosophy. I will do this because I like to finish what I start and also because there is a slight chance that I may go on to receive a doctorate in philosophy and then teach it.

As for “arming” myself…I seek clarity. I found Objectivism at a very young age (14). I absorbed it and understood it and came to the conclusion that it was right. However, I was never exposed to other schools of thought. I want to expose myself to other philosophers’ works. Ayn Rand is pretty easy to read. Kant isn’t. Neither is Nietzshce, Hume, Mill, or most of the others. Thus, I really want to understand what they are saying and derive meaning from their own texts, not an Objectivist’s or any other person’s interpretation.

Let me come to the defense of studying philosophy at university.

First of all, there are some fields which any rational person would run screaming from: gender theory, postmodernism, and the like. That such fields exist does not mean that all philosophy other than Objectivism is horrible.

For example, Aristotle offers insight after insight into how to think, and in certain cases one can see a sort of proto-Objectivism in his work. Likewise, studying the history of philosophy can give one powerful evidence for the primacy of ideas in shaping history.

A few times, when reading the works of a certain philosopher, I came across an idea that sounded objectionable but to which I could not reply. Encountering such ideas and then figuring out what is wrong with them and why helps confirm one’s own ideas and shores up one’s understanding of Objectivism.

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?

Dr. Peikoff essentially addressed this in his course: “Understanding Objectivism”. The answer to this question is highly contextual. For most individuals who value Objectivism but do not wish to become an academic scholar in the humanities, there probably is not much benefit in completing an academic track in philosophy.

However, if you wish to become a Professor of philosophy, studying philosophy becomes necessary especially for effective polemics, which is truly necessary in the academic humanities. When professionally refuting support of Kant, Nietzsche, Mill or Rawls, it is extraordinarily helpful to be able to cite original sources and to not have to rely on regurgitating the assessments of others.

Needless to say, both Mimpy and LaszloWalrus have also provided good reasons to study philosophy as well.

I mean, once you fully comprehend the meaning of the axioms, then everything starts to flow from that, no?

If only it were that easy! :lol:

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 would argue that if one is a student of philosophy at all, or anything really, there is no reason to study it at a university. The main reason to study philosophy at a university is that it is the first step on the career path to becoming a professional philosopher in the modern university system. If you have no interest in that, then there is no reason to study at a university.

Consider the cost of your education. Now consider the amount of time you would have to work paying back that money. Now imagine that you spent the time in college plus the time paying back the cost of college minus the time you would have to spend working to support yourself. Don’t you think you could learn more in that time? Especially if your topic was Objectivist philosophy.

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?

First of all, as others argue, there is value in knowing what the other side has to say, so you can fully understand why they are wrong, and therefore why you are right. Second, there are areas of philosophy that Objectivists have not touched, and good work in philosophy done by non-Objectivists. Third, everything does not flow from the axioms. Forgetting Godel et al for the moment, all the truths of mathematics are consistent with the axioms of ZFC set theory, but that doesn’t mean that a mathematician can just learn the axioms and begin spinning out mathematical truths. Being a good mathematician, and especially a mathematician who can contribute to society outside of the academic circle-jerk, requires a broader conceptual understanding of the issues of math along with the formal understanding of definitions and structures. Likewise, to be a good philosopher (Objectivist or otherwise), you have to look at reality while keeping the axioms in mind, rather than just looking at the axioms.

But the thing is, I know Objectivism is right. I don’t know its every application for every situation, but the axioms and fundamentals are so immutably correct that I can’t imagine I should near to care about why other people hold the delusions they do.

If you are interested in improving the level of philosophical sophistication of the public (a good goal for a professional philosopher), you had better understand what leads people into having mistaken philosophical beliefs.

I shouldn’t take a degree to intellectually arm myself against others. That presupposes that my life should be some conflict of philosophies, constantly having to deal with all the moral subjectivists and the like. I don’t mean I won’t have to deal with them, I just mean I don’t think I should maintain as my focus the idea that I should have to accept their thinking on any level.

Like it or not, the world is full of moral subjectivists right now. You can’t live in an ideal Objectivist world, you have to live in the actual world, and in the actual world there is a conflict of philosophies for which you need to be intellectually armed.

Well, I plan on majoring in philosophy because I know I

Thus, I really want to understand what they are saying and derive meaning from their own texts, not an Objectivist’s or any other person’s interpretation.

Good plan. Objectivist writing on non-Objectivist philosophers is by-and-large horrible and innacurate.

Let me come to the defense of studying philosophy at university.

Your arguments are a defense of studying non-Objectivist philosophy, not studying philosophy at a university.

Good plan. Objectivist writing on non-Objectivist philosophers is by-and-large horrible and innacurate.

This is true. It makes for a peculiar second-handedness in which objectivists rely on “authorities” who themselves haven’t read the original texts.

Why study philosophy, if you’re an Objectivist?

Why study anything? What thing should you study? This is a serious question – do you have an answer? If you would explain your central purpose in life, it would be a lot easier to answer the question.

Your arguments are a defense of studying non-Objectivist philosophy, not studying philosophy at a university.

Philosophy, Objectivist or otherwise, is best studied under the tutelage of experts.

Hey, didn’t Ayn Rand (if I remember correctly) write a few lines about studying philosophy in her essay “Philosophy: Who Needs It”? I gave my book away, thinking that it was on my CD-Rom…of which I think I was mistaken, since I can’t find it there. Damn.

I appreciate all the feedback. I suppose yes, studying Philosophy is immensely helpful in understand why people think what they do, and in also being understand philosophers, rather than others estimation of philosophers. It’s enriching to learn about how proto-Objectivists have thought, and what they’ve had to say.

When I applied for university, it was before I’d started reading Objectivism, so it was for the sake of trying to find a comprehensible philosophy. Since I applied and got in, I’ve gotten deeper and deeper into Objectivism, and it’s made me reevaluate why I want to study Philosophy, since my prime reason is gone. I’m not wanting to shut myself in a little box devoid from reality, but at the same time, I don’t want to needlessly entertain a bunch of ideas that don’t really help me.

Anyone here who has studied/is studying philosophy at University, do you find that learning about past ideas has helped to bolster your reasoning as well as your Objectivist convictions, or has it been needlessly exhausting? I’m taking a class in Religious Studies at school, as its the closest thing to philosophy being taught, and the classes are filled with garbage about ‘Situation Ethics’ and Utilitarianism. I would have been better off without it.

Odden: I want to study Philosophy, I think. English and History don’t interest me too much, Maths is… I’m not very good at maths… I’ve not taken any Science A-Levels, so I can’t study something like Physics or Neurobiology (two subjects that interest me) without taking another two years in school first. Philosophy, academically speaking, is where my heart is. It’s what I know I could study and do well at and work on for hours and hours.

I’m hampered by not being entirely sure what I want to do with my life. Do I want to go to acting school - am I good enough at acting to make a career out of it, even with training? Do I want to study Philosophy, and then go on into acting, learning along the way? Something like Graphic Design or Creative Consultancy also seem pretty good ideas. I’ve just got the problem of having a lot of choice, and not having data to really evaluate which is the best choice.

Odden: I want to study Philosophy, I think. English and History don’t interest me too much, Maths is… I’m not very good at maths… I’ve not taken any Science A-Levels, so I can’t study something like Physics or Neurobiology (two subjects that interest me) without taking another two years in school first. Philosophy, academically speaking, is where my heart is. It’s what I know I could study and do well at and work on for hours and hours.

Let me propose that you consider your Physics & Neurobiology option again. If you set aside the A-levels problem, would you really rather study physics but will settle for philosophy? If so, I think you should give serious thought to investing the two years. I’m not advocating one or the other because of the nature of philosophy vs. physics, but rather asking for your deepest introspections about your own nature. If you’re also considering acting or graphic design, then it seems to me that the matter isn’t resolved for you and the interest in physics isn’t burning enough. So there you are, needing to make a premature decision based on what? I interviewed prospective students at Durham when I was there, and I will say that not one of them ever had a real reason that they wanted to do linguistics, just a vague feeling (of the “Well, I gotta do something” kind). So I do sympathize with the quandry.

In which case, I’d suggest doing philosophy, because it won’t kill you, it might make you stronger, and has a reasonable chance of imparting important intellectual tools that will serve you for a lifetime, even if the particular set of ideas that you learn about are the lubricant on the slippery slope to intellectual hell in a handbasket.

Why study anything? What thing should you study? This is a serious question – do you have an answer? If you would explain your central purpose in life, it would be a lot easier to answer the question.

Many people study (and master) things not for their immediate usefulness, but because their interest is piqued, their curiosity aroused. Because they find beauty in the things they study. Because their ego is boosted by mastering and adding to things they study. Because they create an itch that they HAVE to scratch, their happiness depends on it.

Bob Kolker

Odden - I think it would give me some very important tools and some knowledge. I suppose I just wish I were going off to study a more… holistic degree. They do offer a joint degree with Linguistics, Physics, Economics and Maths (separately; you don’t get them all together). I’d rather study economics as something more casual than in-depth, as it would take too long and the reward would be too little for me to be able to construct a fully, academically-approvable economic system beyond what the top-proponents of Laissez-Faire Capitalism already argue. Similarly with Physics, I’m more interested because Quantum Mechanics is incredibly complex and I want to understand how it integrates with reality, as it is still very much up-in-the-air (or caught between the shift of a wave of energy).

May I inquire what you find interesting about Linguistics? From what I understand, it seems that its exploring the entire idea of universals and concept formation across the entire human race, which I believe to be a very exciting proposition. Are there a lot of nuances and intricacises to it? I ask because I love systems with which there is still a lot to be solved.

Actually, that’s probably the best way to explain my Philosophy-conundrum: it seems like I’ve solved the problem of which Philosophy makes sense, but I’d rather spend my time now understanding and integrating it into my life. I emailed the Head of Philosophy at York, and he had this to say:

The simple answer is ‘yes’, but as always there is a more complicated one. Objectivism is always objectivism *about something* - someone might want to be an objectivist about electrons but not dreams - so we tend to divide up the subject matter of philosophy by topics (and sometimes by philosophers). But in every one of those modules, objectivity is an issue, sometimes more to the forefront than others.

I reiterated the question:

I see - you mean the ‘philosophy’ of Ayn Rand. No, we do not teach it and as far as I know it is not taught in any Philosophy Department in the UK.

Good plan. Objectivist writing on non-Objectivist philosophers is by-and-large horrible and innacurate.

Yeah, right. Most of the information I’ve gotten from Objectivist intellectuals on other philosophers and philosophic systems has been very accurate and extremely informative. I was not able to personally identify what was wrong with Decartes cogito ergo sum until I read Leonard Peikoff’s explanation of same, but when I went back and re-read the Descartes I understood why he ended up with his bizarre “evil genius” problem. . . and why it was B.S.

If you are planning on becoming an Objectivist intellectual yourself, by all means study philosophy. You’ll probably also need to study political science and history. Now, I personally have no such goals because I want to write fantasy novels, which requires an entirely different approach.

Tenure, I empathize with your efforts in choosing an area of study in school/a career path. I recently read a very articulate article on the subject by Alex Epstein that you might find helpful.

I understand the feeling that one has “figured something out” followed by the desire to move on. But I think it will take a long time for you to understand Objectivism on the level of Dr. Peikoff or even several members of this board, not to mention that there are many professional ways with which to make use of that understanding, such as through publications, universities, and the web and blogs. Mr. Epstein helpfully suggests thinking of a certain kind of activity you like to do as a lead and go from there. And as David implied, if you are going to study philosophy you are going to need a reason to study it, a way to apply it to make money. Can you think of one that interests you?

As for “arming” myself…I seek clarity. I found Objectivism at a very young age (14). I absorbed it and understood it and came to the conclusion that it was right. However, I was never exposed to other schools of thought. I want to expose myself to other philosophers’ works. Ayn Rand is pretty easy to read. Kant isn’t. Neither is Nietzshce, Hume, Mill, or most of the others. Thus, I really want to understand what they are saying and derive meaning from their own texts, not an Objectivist’s or any other person’s interpretation.

Of Hume and Mill, I would say their writings are -clear-. The ideas they express require work and grappling (they are non-trivial), but there is no doubt about what they say. Kant on the other hand is nearly impossible to understand. The writing both in the original German and in translation is turgid (that is being charitable). That is why there has been a cottage industry among philosophers to publish books on “what Kant really said”. Not all of them are pairwise compatible. As to Nietzsche, one has to be as crazy as he was to comprehend what he is saying.

In the matter of style Hume and Kant are on opposite sides of the Cosmos.

Bob Kolker

I interviewed prospective students at Durham when I was there, and I will say that not one of them ever had a real reason that they wanted to do linguistics, just a vague feeling (of the “Well, I gotta do something” kind).

I know this is off-topic, but hopefully it will stay as just one post (if not, it can be split). If any of the students had expressed a real reason, how would that have affected your recommendation in terms of admittance (assuming that’s why you were interviewing)? Do you think that idea is common among college interviewers?