# Philosophy Majors



## Empty (Sep 28, 2011)

Continental and Analytic philosophy are not the same thing.


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

non sequitur.


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

even though I am utterly fascinated by lady Sophia and have 4 book shelves full of her thoughts I do not see much use for her 
in the modern tech age. out side of teaching there are very few careers for philosophy majors


----------



## xisnotx (Mar 20, 2014)

the lesson learnt in this thread is to never ask a bunch of philosophy students for their opinion on philosophy and expect any sort of consensus...


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

vinniebob said:


> even though I am utterly fascinated by lady Sophia and have 4 book shelves full of her thoughts I do not see much use for her
> in the modern tech age. out side of teaching there are very few careers for philosophy majors


This is so incorrect, either you have no idea what careers philosophy majors go into or you expect philosophy majors to go into careers that are related to their major.


----------



## Empty (Sep 28, 2011)

Marsibil said:


> non sequitur.


Your previous statement does not apply to Analytic philosophy.


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

DaphneDelRey said:


> This is so incorrect, either you have no idea what careers philosophy majors go into or you expect philosophy majors to go into careers that are related to their major.


walk into a job placement agency and see what high paying careers they have for philosophy majors


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

I agree that people with philosophy backgrounds somehow end up very successful in other fields. The inclination to do that, and if you actually study it the right way, it can open many doors. It is almost universally applicable. I was actually talking about a guy today. Philosophy can be like history of psychology. You learn how the world, and people work basically. From the best minds ever.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

^
What the guy above said, except for the history of psychology bit.


vinniebob said:


> walk into a job placement agency and see what high paying careers they have for philosophy majors


It is not at all unusual for a philosophy major who knows what they're doing to work in banking, consulting, management, law and such like fields.

Though the majority may not have that inclination, they have the talent - but thing about philosophy majors that stick it out is: either they learn how to apply the skills they've learnt to real life, or they don't. The ones that do -> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, and the ones who don't? -> "Would you like fries with that?"


----------



## Gossip Goat (Nov 19, 2013)

My Spanish professor studied Philosophy and he is SOOOO SMART, I know some other guy who is also in Philosophy and he is very verbose and well spoken. Philosophy majors are hot. I know some of them go into law school because of their critical thinking skills. Another thing is academia.

I will say this, the Philosophy majors I've met are so depressive and pessimistic and thats coming from a depressive pessimist so...

Still their smarts are so sexy, like undeniably. I wish to date one and just have them talk. /fangirling


Law school.


----------



## Empty (Sep 28, 2011)

Gossip Goat said:


> My Spanish professor studied Philosophy and he is SOOOO SMART, I know some other guy who is also in Philosophy and he is very verbose and well spoken. Philosophy majors are hot. I know some of them go into law school because of their critical thinking skills. Another thing is academia.
> 
> I will say this, the Philosophy majors I've met are so depressive and pessimistic and thats coming from a depressive pessimist so...
> 
> ...



A shining example of lady-like thought processes.

Who is Hume? FUCK HUME. It is self-evident that all girls *ought *to simply fawn over us philosophy majors in abject adoration.


----------



## Gossip Goat (Nov 19, 2013)

oops, posted twice -.-


----------



## Gossip Goat (Nov 19, 2013)

Empty said:


> A shining example of lady-like thought processes.
> 
> Who is Hume? FUCK HUME. It is self-evident that all girls *ought *to simply fawn over us philosophy majors in abject adoration.


Perfect example ^.^

Just like my professor.


----------



## Ephemerald (Aug 27, 2011)

I don't know. Paying tuition to study ideas and works one can borrow from a library, and discussion one can get from friends or clubs? You'd have to possess a philosophy that studying philosophy in a classroom environment is somehow valuable. Unless you want the degree to join the competitive world of adjuncts, best to just sit in on the classes. No professor has ever turned me down.

I'd imagine that identifying as a feeler would seem like a conflict of interest, but might keep you grounded. The problem with thinkers is that we can become so grounded that it sucks the soul out of living. It's not a bad thing. Eventually you snap your brain into such a distortion that everything seems to make sense in your own twisted ways, assuming you don't axe yourself. As far as discussing it, use your inside voice.


----------



## Empty (Sep 28, 2011)

Gossip Goat said:


> Perfect example ^.^
> 
> Just like my professor.



I see what you did there.


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

Empty said:


> Your previous statement does not apply to Analytic philosophy.


your statement doesn't apply to my statement in any way whatsoever, if you at least look at every word I wrote and put it into context.


----------



## Eleventeenth (Aug 24, 2011)

Marsibil said:


> philosophy as an academic field leads to nothing but endless debate about nothing. Rhetorical maxims don't hold sway over nature.





Empty said:


> Continental and Analytic philosophy are not the same thing.


Analytic philosophy is about solving real world problems in a logical/scientific/empiricist fashion. So, by definition, analytic philosophy is not an "endless debate about nothing". If it were, it wouldn't fit in the analytic philosophy category. I'm not some huge proponent of studying analytic philosophy or anything, but analytic philosophy specifically attempts to avoid "rhetorical maxims" that "don't hold sway over nature". Instead, it attacks or confronts nature and attempts to tangibly solve problems/issues that are a part of nature.

Sitting around debating on computer forums = endless debates about nothing (most times)

Coming up with ethical solutions of how to fairly treat people with disabilities or war veterans, for example, and to make sure they have all the advantages that the regular population has; or coming up with a new logical maxim that changes the way people can interact with a computer; or the implementation of Institutional Review Boards (see: The Belmont Report) in scientific research that attempt to account for/monitor ethics in research = tangible/applied/empirical/scientific


----------



## Madam (Apr 1, 2012)

Ephemerald said:


> I don't know. Paying tuition to study ideas and works one can borrow from a library, and discussion one can get from friends or clubs?


The same can be done in majority of other subjects as well. Economics, math, theoretical physics, biology (just get a microscope from e-bay), history, psychology, chemistry, all the arts etc. Just stay at home, read books in a corner, discuss ideas with your friends (who, of course, possess all knowledge in all fields), then present yourself as a proud autodidact to potential employers. Instant profit!


----------



## Ephemerald (Aug 27, 2011)

Madam said:


> The same can be done in majority of other subjects as well. Economics, math, theoretical physics, biology (just get a microscope from e-bay), history, psychology, chemistry, all the arts etc. Just stay at home, read books in a corner, discuss ideas with your friends (who, of course, possess all knowledge in all fields), then present yourself as a proud autodidact to potential employers. Instant profit!


Humanities and social sciences, for example, I agree. Chemistry and biology? The entire future is woven around theory you've learnt from books, but the real experience takes place applying it in a laboratory. If you're not in applied STEM or a technical/trade field, academia is a waste of money. Comparing a book to the access of regulated chemicals, and expensive, specialized equipment is different.


----------



## Empty (Sep 28, 2011)

Ephemerald said:


> Humanities and social sciences, for example, I agree. Chemistry and biology? The entire future is woven around theory you've learnt from books, but the real experience takes place applying it in a laboratory. If you're not in applied STEM or a technical/trade field, academia is a waste of money. Comparing a book to the access of regulated chemicals, and expensive, specialized equipment is different.



And what determines that one ought to care for the future?


----------



## Ephemerald (Aug 27, 2011)

Empty said:


> And what determines that one ought to care for the future?


If we're discussing relativity, there's not much point in having a conversation, and it invalidates your own reply. If we're to establish boundaries to an argument, then perhaps we can continue.


----------



## Empty (Sep 28, 2011)

Ephemerald said:


> If we're discussing relativity, there's not much point in having a conversation, and it invalidates your own reply. If we're to establish boundaries to an argument, then perhaps we can continue.


Sure, you may be right.

And what about pure mathematics or axiomatic formal languages? Wouldn't they also fall under gaze of impracticality?


----------



## Ephemerald (Aug 27, 2011)

Empty said:


> Sure, you may be right.
> 
> And what about pure mathematics or axiomatic formal languages? Wouldn't they also fall under gaze of impracticality?


If you're applying your "and what about" realms of academia upon an argument concerning the boundaries of your "what determines that one ought to care" statement, please continue, for applying pure mathematics or axiomatic formal languages upon your opinion of what might be practical, without invalidating the limitations of said systems upon the point of structuring your own argument would fascinate me.

_The nerd gambit has begun. Shall Empty accept or decline the piece?_ ^_^


----------



## Empty (Sep 28, 2011)

It'll be a gambit about--and for--nothing.


----------



## Ephemerald (Aug 27, 2011)

Empty said:


> It'll be a gambit about--and for--nothing.


Yes. That's what I'd originally alluded to, but I felt I'd further jest in my prior reply. A discussion doesn't have much of a point if you don't value the point of a discussion. Quite frankly, I do not find this state of mind an interesting nor pleasant place, for one's imprisoned themselves within a certain system of logic. A natural question would follow: "Why do you believe it to be the way have a conversation?"

Everyone's welcome to correct me, but I feel that if one can generate pervasive meanings as you have, there's not much point to philosophy. You've already found yourself, and have become, dead.

So we're at a cross of existentialism. Or nihilism? Free will and relativism always seems to crop up, no? ^_~


----------



## Empty (Sep 28, 2011)

I tend to oscillate between revelation and terror. Truth and meaninglessness. Dialectical--axiomatic; Continental--Analytic.

My (or our?) mind is a paradoxical and finite thing, so... it's always at a crossroads.


----------



## Madam (Apr 1, 2012)

Ephemerald said:


> Humanities and social sciences, for example, I agree. Chemistry and biology? The entire future is woven around theory you've learnt from books, but the real experience takes place applying it in a laboratory. If you're not in applied STEM or a technical/trade field, academia is a waste of money. Comparing a book to the access of regulated chemicals, and expensive, specialized equipment is different.


I wrote that one should get a microscope from e-bay, it's not a big deal. And anyway, experimenting is in no way superior to reading about others experimenting. I have plenty of friends working in labs, and even masters students in top unis don't get to do more in a lab than the complete basics, after the professor has told them to do it. If they pay 9k pounds in tuition, they are allowed to spend less than 100 pounds a month on specialized chemicals and cells to experiment with. Thus experimenting in unis is inferior to reading about experiments, directly you gain close to no experience at all. Thus unis are completely worthless.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Madam said:


> I wrote that one should get a microscope from e-bay, it's not a big deal. And anyway, experimenting is in no way superior to reading about others experimenting. I have plenty of friends working in labs, and even masters students in top unis don't get to do more in a lab than the complete basics, after the professor has told them to do it. If they pay 9k pounds in tuition, they are allowed to spend less than 100 pounds a month on specialized chemicals and cells to experiment with. Thus experimenting in unis is inferior to reading about experiments, directly you gain close to no experience at all. Thus unis are completely worthless.


Considering that experimentation is largely a matter of skill, you would do rather poorly if you were ever to think that you could perform a practical by reading about it. Unless you lack the ability in the first place, which I suspect that you do based on your assumptions and statements.

Also, there's really nothing impressive about being a dilettante which is what you're advocating. Is your view common in the UK? Because you'd find yourself with no future if you held those views in the US. Maybe even rightly so if history is any kind of a lesson! You're not the first person to ever think that all of the world's problems could be solved by reading or thinking about it. :laughing:

STEM degrees are pretty much the only degree worth anything right out of school. Non-STEM degrees essentially only certify that you meet a minimum intelligence and dedication level to complete school and are otherwise just pieces of paper. Which is why philosophy majors do well in non-philosophy fields, because they're intelligent to begin with. Not because their degree was particularly useful.


----------



## Madam (Apr 1, 2012)

MNiS said:


> Is your view common in the UK? Because you'd find yourself with no future if you held those views in the US.


Yes, it is very common in the UK. As a matter of fact, in 2013 alone the number of students dropped by 7% here, and the government has created a new development plan for public libraries, to increase their overall quality and ability to purchase acclaimed scientific journals. David Cameron is also currently working on a new legislation, to protect autodidacts from discrimination in the job market.



> STEM degrees are pretty much the only degree worth anything right out of school. Non-STEM degrees essentially only certify that you meet a minimum intelligence


Also true. After all, one can train a monkey even in a couple of months, whereas teaching a man to think is a task of a lifetime.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Madam said:


> Yes, it is very common in the UK. As a matter of fact, in 2013 alone the number of students dropped by 7% here, and the government has created a new development plan for public libraries, to increase their overall quality and ability to purchase acclaimed scientific journals. David Cameron is also currently working on a new legislation, to protect autodidacts from discrimination in the job market.


Considering the UK is a very classist society, I'm not surprised self-teaching is being encouraged to separate those who go for higher education, and those who don't. The same is happening in Japan where the society is quickly forming into a two-tier society of the haves and have-nots.

The US tends to be an egalitarian and meritorious society so college is encouraged and the person decides what they want to do after university. Quite frankly, I think the US way is much superior.


----------



## Madam (Apr 1, 2012)

MNiS said:


> Considering the UK is a very classist society, I'm not surprised self-teaching is being encouraged to separate those who go for higher education, and those who don't. The same is happening in Japan where the society is quickly forming into a two-tier society of the haves and have-nots.
> 
> The US tends to be an egalitarian and meritorious society so college is encouraged and the person decides what they want to do after university. Quite frankly, I think the US way is much superior.


Your use of the term ''superior'' is very symptomatic. The true reason for this is the absolute elitism in the US, the old fashioned idea that there are people (old white men in 99% of cases) and institutions who have access to truth and authority to teach others, thus interfering with the right of an individual to succeed on his/her own. In the UK it is basic knowledge that every individual has the same right to define truth as anyone else. Autodidactism is an expression of individual freedom and intelligence, now recognized at governmental level.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Madam said:


> Your use of the term ''superior'' is very symptomatic. The true reason for this is the absolute elitism in the US, the old fashioned idea that there are people (old white men in 99% of cases) and institutions who have access to truth and authority to teach others, thus interfering with the right of an individual to succeed on his/her own. In the UK it is basic knowledge that every individual has the same right to define truth as anyone else. Autodidactism is an expression of individual freedom and intelligence, now recognized at governmental level.


Elitism? I see hypocrisy is something you're well acquainted with. Who was the one who was praising the virtues of the autodidact while simultaneously saying scorning the student as being part of a useless institution. Consider what you've asserted: The journals available at the library is a collection of academic research and books on subjects. Where do you suppose that research and literature comes from? It's not the garage academic, that much is for sure. The solution you're advocating is completely dependent on the institution you're deriding. I think you need some perspective, because your views aren't very good.


----------



## Madam (Apr 1, 2012)

MNiS said:


> Elitism? I see hypocrisy is something you're well acquainted with. Who was the one who was praising the virtues of the autodidact while simultaneously saying scorning the student as being part of a useless institution. Consider what you've asserted: The journals available at the library is a collection of academic research and books on subjects. Where do you suppose that research and literature comes from? It's not the garage academic, that much is for sure. The solution you're advocating is completely dependent on the institution you're deriding. I think you need some perspective, because your views aren't very good.


This is exactly my and @_Ephemerald_'s point - all the materials are freely available for individual study and discussion among friends and clubs. There is no actual need to attend university, and the idea that the academic can give you more than you can read in his book is unfounded (compare the price as well: a few pounds vs. thousands of pounds). We are not saying that all the academics are wrong/useless, we are simply recognizing the fact that institutionalized education is never necessary for complete understanding of the field of your interest. I think it is obvious that involvement in the academia has harshly limited your perspective.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Madam said:


> This is exactly my and @_Ephemerald_'s point - all the materials are freely available for individual study and discussion among friends and clubs. There is no actual need to attend university, and imagining that the academic can give you more than you can read in his book (compare the price as well: a few pounds vs. thousands of pounds). We are not saying that all the academics are wrong/useless, we are simply recognizing the fact that institutionalized education is never necessary for complete understanding of the field of your interest. I think it is obvious that involvement in the academia has harshly limited your perspective.


To begin, you're making a ridiculous assertion. No one thinks that someone who has just graduated from school is already an expert in their field. That comes from experience and a little bit of experimentation, of which you've already stated that you believe is inferior to academic knowledge.  If you have a problem with the cost of school then there are non-research schools and trade schools.

So on the contrary, you are most certainly being the elitist here and your sense of entitlement has led you to make some pretty bad conclusions. If anyone is lacking perspective here, it's you.


----------



## Madam (Apr 1, 2012)

MNiS said:


> To begin, you're making a ridiculous assertion. No one thinks that someone who has just graduated from school is already an expert in their field.


I didn't claim someone thinks that.




> That comes from experience and a little bit of experimentation, of which you've already stated that you believe is inferior to academic knowledge. If you have a problem with the cost of school then there are non-research schools and trade schools.
> 
> So on the contrary, you are most certainly being the elitist here and your sense of entitlement has led you to make some pretty bad conclusions. If anyone is lacking perspective here, it's you.


STEM undergrads get a lot of basic training when being hired, because they are deemed clueless. Undergrad people only take part (mostly - as observers) in experiments that you can easily find on Youtube and repeat at home. What is valued is only the theoretical knowledge, gained from books. Thus there is no difference between a student of a university and an autodidact. The difference sometimes appears at Ph.D. and post-doc levels (rarely pursued), because universities then grant free access to labs and equipment of such quality that is unaccessible to most laymen. But that too can be very relative (compare a UK based autodidact to a uni student in Zimbabwe).


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Madam said:


> I didn't claim someone thinks that.


No, instead you think that anyone outside of school must be inferior. Anyway, your views just become more ridiculous the more I consider it. 



Madam said:


> STEM undergrads get a lot of basic training when being hired, because they are deemed clueless. Undergrad people only take part (mostly - as observers) in experiments that you can easily find on Youtube and repeat at home. What is valued is only the theoretical knowledge, gained from books. Thus there is no difference between a student of a university and an autodidact. The difference sometimes appears at Ph.D. and post-doc levels (rarely pursued), because universities then grant free access to labs and equipment of such quality that is unaccessible to most laymen. But that too can be very relative (compare a UK based autodidact to a uni student in Zimbabwe).


The only thing clueless about someone out of school is their ignorance to their workplace or industry, which is completely non-academic information. Training one receives is specific to the job or based on "best practices". To say the STEM degree is thusly useless is a wild leap in logic and quite frankly, makes you seem like a fool for making such a poor conclusion. Which is to say, the autodidact can't learn the skills necessary but that certainly isn't supported by anything you've stated. Anyway, self-taught knowledge can be valuable in a developing industry. They just become unsuitable when specialization and specific theoretical knowledge is required. The autodidact may have all the necessary ability, but there's no proof. Unless, according to you, one must lower themselves to demonstrate it through experiment assuming the employer even bothers to spend the resources to do so.


----------



## Madam (Apr 1, 2012)

MNiS said:


> To say the STEM degree is thusly useless is a wild leap in logic


Nobody is saying that. Let me quote the original statement, made by Ephemerald: _I don't know. Paying tuition to study ideas and works one can borrow from a library, and discussion one can get from friends or clubs?
_The whole point is that a degree gives you no edge in the job market or knowledge, that's all.



> Anyway, self-taught knowledge can be valuable in a developing industry. They just become unsuitable when specialization and specific theoretical knowledge is required.


It doesn't matter whether the knowledge is gained from a book in classroom or from a book at home; from an experiment in classroom or at home etc.



> The autodidact may have all the necessary knowledge, but there's no proof. Unless, according to you, your autodidact must lower themselves to prove it through experimentation.


People don't get blindly hired, they have job interviews and trial periods. There is no proof that _anyone_ is what the company is looking for, degree or no degree. Ultimately everyone has to go through basic training by their employer and prove their abilities.

But I see that we agree on one point - where high specialization is not required (i.e. all undergrad degrees) there autodidactism = university. This is exactly what Mr Cameron believes as well, and I think he is absolutely right.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Madam said:


> Nobody is saying that. Let me quote the original statement, made by Ephemerald: _I don't know. Paying tuition to study ideas and works one can borrow from a library, and discussion one can get from friends or clubs?_


I was referring to your statement here:

_"I wrote that one should get a microscope from e-bay, it's not a big deal. And anyway, experimenting is in no way superior to reading about others experimenting. I have plenty of friends working in labs, and even masters students in top unis don't get to do more in a lab than the complete basics, after the professor has told them to do it. If they pay 9k pounds in tuition, they are allowed to spend less than 100 pounds a month on specialized chemicals and cells to experiment with. Thus experimenting in unis is inferior to reading about experiments, directly you gain close to no experience at all. Thus unis are completely worthless._"

So excuse me, you weren't only referring to STEM degrees, you're claiming that all of schooling is useless because a person can read about it instead, because in your opinion, experience is inferior to theory. Lets see how far that attitude will carry you outside of academia.  

Also, I'm not sure if you know how the practical STEM fields really work, but the practical fields all teach practicals in labs. Even for undergraduates. So you're just wrong about that claim because those skills are immediately transferable.



Madam said:


> It doesn't matter whether the knowledge is gained from a book in classroom or from a book at home; from an experiment in classroom or at home etc.


 Which again, is a matter of proof. 



Madam said:


> People don't get blindly hired, they have job interviews and trial periods. There is no proof that _anyone_ is what the company is looking for, degree or no degree.


Which are for non-academic reasons, unless the person proves to be too lazy or incompetent.



Madam said:


> Ultimately everyone has to go through basic training by their employer and prove their abilities.


Basic training? Oh, please. You're not joining the military when you start an entry-level job. Most employers just throw you into the position and expect you to figure out how things work and to learn as needed. If a person receives any training at all, it will be for very specific knowledge that the person wouldn't reasonably already be expected to know. Some places have rotational programs but that's more of the same, except the person is rotated in and out of programs until they find what they're good at or enjoy; but even then don't expect extensive training unless you're learning a specific craft or skill.



Madam said:


> But I see that we agree on one point - where high specialization is not required (i.e. all undergrad degrees) there autodidactism = university. This is exactly what Mr David Cameron believes as well, and I think he is absolutely right.


Well, he might be right in your small-minded view but in terms of how viable the approach is, it's very limited in usefulness.


----------



## InspectorDoohickey (Nov 12, 2012)

MNiS said:


> Also, I'm not sure if you know how the practical STEM fields really work, but the practical fields all teach practicals in labs. Even for undergraduates. So you're just wrong about that claim because those skills are immediately transferable.


I haven't found this to be true at all, not for me, or any of the students I've met. I've interviewed at several start ups, I've sat through information sessions and lectures with Microsoft, Google, and NYU. I've attended a scary amount of tech events, and I've worked for IBM. I'm very familiar with NYC tech community, but I've never had a student, HR rep, or executive tell me what you just told us. The Classroom, in my experience, has always been years behind the technology. And so most of our applicable skills are developed outside it, from websites, books, and often in solitude.


----------



## xisnotx (Mar 20, 2014)

https://www.linkedin.com/edu/alumni...0&count=10&filters=off&trk=edu-alumni-chg-fos

It's an interesting database of 400,000 philosophy majors and what they are doing.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Amaru said:


> I haven't found this to be true at all, not for me, or any of the students I've met. I've interviewed at several start ups, I've sat through information sessions and lectures with Microsoft, Google, and NYU. I've attended a scary amount of tech events, and I've worked for IBM. I'm very familiar with NYC tech community, but I've never had a student, HR rep, or executive tell me what you just told us. The Classroom, in my experience, has always been years behind the technology. And so most of our applicable skills are developed outside it, from websites, books, and often in solitude.


Friends in more practical STEM fields have told me that what they learned in the lab and during practicals were definitely immediately transferable to the working world. Of course an undergrad won't know everything nor are they expected to, but knowing the skills, techniques and concepts of the job you're going into is what your university degree is supposed to be preparing you for. If you haven't learned a significant amount from at least one of those three, then your degree has failed you. STEM degrees tend to better in that regard though which was the point I was making.

I went to school for chemical engineering and the financial analysis and project management aspect to engineering economics was the most immediately applicable skill set I learned in school. You're seriously telling me you didn't learn anything of relevance at university? Because I find it difficult to believe you went through college without at least one application or applied course.


----------



## HowDareThey (Dec 31, 2010)

I sometimes wish I had studied more philosophy, and asked more proactive questions about how my beloved humanities translated into career goals. Ethicists study philosphy (medical ethicists, business and organizational ethicists, etc) but those are just brief examples tied to one area of philosophy. People are often very critical of humanities majors when they should not be. Studying humanities does not ipso facto prevent one from studying so called "pragmatic" topics, and the humanities do increase critical thinking. Instead of trying to get everyone to study STEM topics because they think the sciences are so desperately needed (like so many claims, partly true at best) society and the economy should say "oh no, we've failed our humanities majors by not hiring them!" and working hard to find ways to make use of thoughtful writers and critical thinkers that the humanities can produce.


----------



## HowDareThey (Dec 31, 2010)

By the way, I'm a therapist, and more and deeper knowledge of philosophy would not hurt.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

HowDareThey said:


> I sometimes wish I had studied more philosophy, and asked more proactive questions about how my beloved humanities translated into career goals. Ethicists study philosphy (medical ethicists, business and organizational ethicists, etc) but those are just brief examples tied to one area of philosophy. People are often very critical of humanities majors when they should not be. Studying humanities does not ipso facto prevent one from studying so called "pragmatic" topics, and the humanities do increase critical thinking. Instead of trying to get everyone to study STEM topics because they think the sciences are so desperately needed (like so many claims, partly true at best) society and the economy should say "oh no, we've failed our humanities majors by not hiring them!" and working hard to find ways to make use of thoughtful writers and critical thinkers that the humanities can produce.


I think people like to blame society too much as well though.

If humanities students truly are as gifted at thinking as they/we say we are, then we should be willing and able to use those skills to _find_ the right jobs for ourselves. The opportunities are slim, but it's not completely impossible... we're just playing the Employment Game on 'Really Hard Mode.'

But the nature of the economy is; when your degree isn't particularly in demand in any field, _you _have to do all the leg work yourself. And most students, not just humanities ones, don't really want to do that. They just want to get the degree, then get the job afterwards - that was the plan we were told to stick to. But when it doesn't work out that way, a lot of people get stuck, lost, confused, and swept aside by the competition. And more often than not, it's either a humanities student or maths/biology student funnily enough.


----------



## HowDareThey (Dec 31, 2010)

DaphneDelRey said:


> I think people like to blame society too much as well though.
> 
> If humanities students truly are as gifted at thinking as they/we say we are, then we should be willing and able to use those skills to _find_ the right jobs for ourselves. The opportunities are slim, but it's not completely impossible... we're just playing the Employment Game on 'Really Hard Mode.'
> 
> But the nature of the economy is; when your degree isn't particularly in demand in any field, _you _have to do all the leg work yourself. And most students, not just humanities ones, don't really want to do that. They just want to get the degree, then get the job afterwards - that was the plan we were told to stick to. But when it doesn't work out that way, a lot of people get stuck, lost, confused, and swept aside by the competition. And more often than not, it's either a humanities student or maths/biology student funnily enough.


I think it can potentially happen to students in every field. I think there should be A LOT more help offered by universities and businesses and temp agencies to help young people get jobs. Getting fully established in a career is up to oneself, (the effort along the way and the willingness and risk to change jobs, etc) but, how often does a 22 or 25 year old know where to find jobs, where their degree is accepted and valued, or whatever? A little help would be appreciated. It's excessively hard and young people are the least experienced or knowledgable and equipped to find their way around the world. Some kind of connection between the school and the outside world would help everybody. College career centers are crap, they help nobody, they should be better. Headhunters seem to be a thing of the past--maybe I'm wrong--or only out for MBAs or something.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

HowDareThey said:


> I think it can potentially happen to students in every field. I think there should be A LOT more help offered by universities and businesses and temp agencies to help young people get jobs. Getting fully established in a career is up to oneself, (the effort along the way and the willingness and risk to change jobs, etc) but, how often does a 22 or 25 year old know where to find jobs, where their degree is accepted and valued, or whatever? A little help would be appreciated. It's excessively hard and young people are the least experienced or knowledgable and equipped to find their way around the world. Some kind of connection between the school and the outside world would help everybody. *College career centers are crap, they help nobody, they should be better.* Headhunters seem to be a thing of the past--maybe I'm wrong--or only out for MBAs or something.


Yeah, I agree that it happens in every field, but some more than others.

I'm not sure that universities are the problem per se. In my experience it's the people who work in the "career centres" (that's what we call them over here) - a lot of the time, they are just woefully shit at their jobs.

> how often does a 22 or 25 year old know where to find jobs, where their degree is accepted and valued, or whatever?

Again, this is what I was saying that sometimes an economy favours one type of student over another.

Haha, yeah I definitely agree with you about career centres. Complete joke the people that work at mine, but they hold a lot of events where companies come in themselves that are always useful. I think Headhunters focus exclusively on experienced hires (people who are already established within the field), so yeah, my experience is the same as yours in that sense as well.

But then again, I don't think my career prospects are shot to shit at all. In fact I'm excited!!
But it could just be incredibly naive optimism on my part, we'll see.
Only time will tell after all :kitteh:


----------



## S33K3RZ (Oct 18, 2014)

Blindfolded Miles said:


> Has anyone here majored (or is majoring) in Philosophy? I'm especially interested in NFs that are choosing to major in Philosophy, but I am interested in hearing from everyone. How has majoring in Philosophy shaped your world view? Do you find your behaviors or thought processes changing? For better or worse?
> 
> If you are a feeler, is it hard for you to find a balance? Are you finding it harder to appreciate things? I don't know how to better explain these questions, but if you feel it, you'll know what I'm talking about.


While I have a love and solid background in the subject, unless you are wealthy or a trust fund baby I would recommend against getting a degree in the subject for a number of reasons. 

What careers do you see people with this degree that you see yourself in when you get this degree?


----------



## WorldPeace (Dec 30, 2014)

DaphneDelRey said:


> Oh, and I just started reading _NE_, fucking awesome. Should have done it sooner. It's quite a shock moment when you realise that after all this "progress," we're still just the same animals that we've always been. We just wear flashier clothes and own more things now.


What or who is this _NE_ you speak of? I'm interested, haha.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

WorldPeace said:


> What or who is this _NE_ you speak of? I'm interested, haha.


It's a book on Aristotelian Ethics called Nicomachean Ethics, written by the great himself. If you are going to read it, I suggest reading it with some other accompanying work that explains the controversies and subtleties surrounding the text.


----------



## zpsych (Jan 28, 2015)

Mmm..


----------



## TML3193 (Jan 27, 2015)

Philosophy major here, also an INTP. I'm doing a 4-year specialized honours program in philosophy, in my final semester of it.

It's not as harrowing as people claim it to be, to be honest, it's actually pretty easy. Over here I don't really have to worry about research in general, readings are light (but super in-depth), formatting isn't an issue for papers as long as it makes sense, and so on and so forth.

I find that philosophy changes your world view depending on how much you invest yourself into it. If you REALLY care about the topic, and actually think about it all outside of just the scope of your classes, then yeah, it can get kind of messy. To echo the other sentiments in this thread, there have been times over the last 3+ years that I've just felt kind of lost, as in, why are we all doing this? What's the point? Why is any of this necessary? 

The other thing my philosophy education has done could be considered rather significant by some: prior to starting my degree I was a Roman Catholic. I wasn't super into it, I didn't go to church every Sunday, but I went once a month at least. Went to Catholic schools from the age of 4 - 17, did all of the sacraments and what not, all of that stuff. Fast-forward to today, and I don't care about religion at all. I haven't been to church in nearly 3 years. It doesn't make sense to me anymore. I've found that my philosophy education has given me a more objective and widespread view of the world; you really find your niche after a bit and reevaluate yourself and what you believe in. 

So long as you don't take yourself too seriously with it all, you'll be fine. But, as with any major, ensure that it is what YOU WANT TO DO. I chose philosophy because it greatly interested me, and I do not regret my decision whatsoever. People like to poke fun at philosophy by saying its useless, which isn't so - with any humanities degree you have to put in the legwork and use it properly to get what you want. If anything, philosophy is better than other disciplines like history and English, because it gives you those critical thinking and analytic skills that you can apply to really any domain in the real world. 

I hope this helps~


----------



## Empty (Sep 28, 2011)

To be completely honest, I'm starting to have major doubts regarding my prospects for grad school.

First, I have to take into account how much debt I'll accumulate.

Second, I have to take into account the difficulty of getting into a top 5, top 10, top 20, and top 30-50 philosophy graduate program. If I cannot at least get into a top 20 Ph.D program directly from undergrad, then I might consider either doing a terminal Masters prior to that (which probably means more money wasted), or go for a non-terminal Masters-transfers-into-Ph.D program (such as the one offered by The New School).

All of this is not taking into account my relatively poor GPA of 3.85 with one A- and one B+ in my philosophy upper division courses, and one A- in my lower division philosophy courses. The competition for philosophy for grad school is actually fucking insane for some reason, and I absolutely have NO IDEA whether I'll get into any worthwhile programs.

Therefore, I'm seriously considering going to Law School. It sounds fucking awful, boring, and monstrous in comparison to working under philosophical topics, but I'll probably have improved prospects for getting a decently-paying job somewhere while I bunker down and start plotting how I'm going to retire from the workforce or become an entrepreneur for the rest of my life.

Or, maybe, I'll get suckered into the corporate world and have to stay there forever, grinding out bullshit for a bullshit cause. I think the possibility of going into consulting may be an option upon getting a law degree as well (I really don't want to be a lawyer, but getting accepted into a good Law School is probably easier for me than an equally strong philosophy program.

Conversely, even if I do land in some half-decent graduate program, my chances of getting a job afterwards is still slim, and my chances of getting tenure on top of that is even slimmer. 

So, basically, life seems like it's going to be god-fucking-awful in the years to come.

I really, really hate being alive.

Why the fuck did my parents have to procreate.

I will never have children.

Being responsible for myself is already too much of a pain in the ass, let alone being responsible for other people.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

I sometimes toy with the idea of majoring in philosophy. I'm working towards a BSc in molecular bio right now, and it's all right. I am nowhere near as enthusiastic about it as I used to be though. I have way more philosophy credits than I need to satisfy anything like elective or breadth requirements, but I just keep taking them. I enjoy it, and it comes naturally to me. I appreciate it on numerous levels, also being a great lover of literature in general. I also enjoy writing. 

I just have no idea what I'd do for a career after. I pretty well ruled out law school already, and anything in business, banking or economics makes me want to slit my wrists and be done with it already. If I did major in philosophy, I would probably take it all the way - get at least a masters degree, maybe higher. Then I donno, write or teach or something. 

I think philosophy is great and widely applicable to different fields, but just be careful. I don't know if its the same everywhere, but where I live philosophy majors are a dime a dozen. If you don't know what you want to do already and you aren't passionate about it, it may turn out to be an expensive piece of paper that won't do you much good in the world of employment.


----------



## Dao (Sep 13, 2013)

I used to major in philosophy, and I loved it but I did not love it enough. I realized one day that I do not want to spend graduate school much less an entire career discussing epiphenomalism, eliminative materialism, nomic necessitation, indefeasibility and so on. Not to mention employers hate to hear you majored in philosophy. It's a great subject but I've relegated philosophy to the free time category.


----------



## Ninjaws (Jul 10, 2014)

I would never study something with absolutely no progress in terms of career. 
You would create debt just to have a fun time for a few years. 
After that you'll have to find a job in an entirely different field because philosophers aren't highly sought after.


----------



## Notus Asphodelus (Jan 20, 2015)

There are many ways you can use your philosophical skills such as being a graphic designer or an architect. A lot of concepts and ideas have to be taken into consideration before you could even start on designing. Knowing philosophy as well as a myriad of other things such as engineering or business are plus points as a thinking designer. Don't limit your skills into one particular job scope.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

LuvGen said:


> There are many ways you can use your philosophical skills such as being a graphic designer or an architect. A lot of concepts and ideas have to be taken into consideration before you could even start on designing. Knowing philosophy as well as a myriad of other things such as engineering or business are plus points as a thinking designer. Don't limit your skills into one particular job scope.


Yeah...but why major in philosophy? If it interests ppl, why not just learn privately & major in a more useful subject?


----------



## Notus Asphodelus (Jan 20, 2015)

FreeBeer said:


> Yeah...but why major in philosophy? If it interests ppl, why not just learn privately & major in a more useful subject?


I don't know, but perhaps if they are plenty of websites and Youtube videos on philosophy as much as those of MBTI types online references, then there wouldn't be a need to study philosophy in a school. The main purpose of going to school is to be guided. On your own, you can only learn as much as you already know. You may miss out on what you don't know the same way you may miss updates on Facebook if you don't check in from time to time.


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

You're better off learning a technical skill than majoring in philosophy. Even art classes are more useful.
Understanding concepts clearly is one thing, proficiently screwing around with language and bullshitting in circles is another.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Oxford lectures are on YouTube. Screw going to college.


----------



## Notus Asphodelus (Jan 20, 2015)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Oxford lectures are on YouTube. Screw going to college.


So much win!


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

LuvGen said:


> I don't know, but perhaps if they are plenty of websites and Youtube videos on philosophy as much as those of MBTI types online references, then there wouldn't be a need to study philosophy in a school. The main purpose of going to school is to be guided. On your own, you can only learn as much as you already know. You may miss out on what you don't know the same way you may miss updates on Facebook if you don't check in from time to time.


Plenty of resources online, buy books & join or better yet create a community where people discuss philosophy, hold online & offline meetings. There is plenty one can do outside of getting into debt to learn something one may not be able to use to pay off said debt.

Maybe others don't have this view, but imo philosophy belongs in every individual's life. It certainly belongs in mine. I can't help but think, reflect & question everything.

 its like an itch...


----------



## Notus Asphodelus (Jan 20, 2015)

FreeBeer said:


> Plenty of resources online, buy books & join or better yet create a community where people discuss philosophy, hold online & offline meetings. There is plenty one can do outside of getting into debt to learn something one may not be able to use to pay off said debt.


I think having a community where discussions can be held is much more engaging than reading a book. It's not to say that books are not useful, but sometimes authors of books have to tendency to write in lingos which for beginners, they may not understand and even after you read a book, you may sometimes need a second or third opinions from other resources or people.


----------



## Notus Asphodelus (Jan 20, 2015)

FreeBeer said:


> Maybe others don't have this view, but imo philosophy belongs in every individual's life. It certainly belongs in mine. I can't help but think, reflect & question everything.
> 
> its like an itch...


That's true though.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

LuvGen said:


> So much win!


You probably couldn't afford to go there, thanks YouTube.


----------



## Notus Asphodelus (Jan 20, 2015)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> You probably couldn't afford to go there, thanks YouTube.


Alumni of Youtube University. :kitteh:


----------



## Notus Asphodelus (Jan 20, 2015)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> You probably couldn't afford to go there, thanks YouTube.


I've learned 50% of my course there.


----------



## Dao (Sep 13, 2013)

FreeBeer said:


> Plenty of resources online, buy books & join or better yet create a community where people discuss philosophy, hold online & offline meetings. There is plenty one can do outside of getting into debt to learn something one may not be able to use to pay off said debt.
> 
> Maybe others don't have this view, but imo philosophy belongs in every individual's life. It certainly belongs in mine. I can't help but think, reflect & question everything.
> 
> its like an itch...


I agree! Everyone should get more acquainted with philosophy. The only thing is that philosophy outside the classroom is strikingly distinct from philosophy inside the classroom. It really is an academic discipline complete with its own nomenclature and standards for argumentation. There are things that cannot be accessed as readily and thoroughly outside the classroom. I definitely don't think anyone should major in philosophy unless they want to teach it, but I do think that everyone should take a few classes.


----------

