Yes, it’s time to stop justifying the study of Philosophy by pointing to how well-paid philosophy students can be in other careers. Amen to this whole post!
I’ve recently had a couple of graduate engineering friends, playfully challenge me about the cultural devalue of Philosophy in America. They posed two supposedly antagonizing questions:
(1) What does philosophy actually make (construct)? To which I answered: our highly treasured scientific method and reasoned theories of natural, nation state, and international law (among other things).
(2) Why aren’t philosophers interviewed on, say, “60 Minutes” as are economists or political scientists?
To which I pointed out: check-book journalism may entice an interview with Snoop Dog or Martha Stewart on “60 Minutes.” But not current philosophers Noam Chomsky or John Haldane. Nor Karl Popper, were he still alive. In sum, genuine philosophers cannot be bought. Nor do they have agents “selling” their brands.
this is the kind of thing that drives me nuts. “what do they produce?” as if the sole purpose of humans is to produce or “create value.” ironically, if they spent a bit more time considering the world through a different lens, they might reason themselves out of this implanted value system.
Maybe colleges should make all incoming freshmen start with philosophy (at least some epistemology, ethics, logic) and then once that framework is in place, release them into other fields.
On the flip side, I’ve run into some young philosophers, suspended since childhood in academic jargon and formal arguments, who seem like they could use some life experience to broaden their perspective and temper their theoretical certainty. Maybe colleges should make these students go outside and play with other kids for a semester or two as part of their liberal education.
Right now those of us with little or no college are feeling buried by an unprecedented avalanche of data. We could use the shovel that practical philosophy provides. If only more philosophers would prioritize expressing themselves in a way we all can understand.
Volvo invented the three-point seatbelt, but refused a patent in order to make it freely available to everyone. They just gave it away, to everyone’s benefit. What I’m saying is, you’re welcome.
There are also some interesting statistics measuring the job market performance of college graduates. Philosophers actually perform quite well. Of course, it’s challenging to find a job specifically tailored to philosophy graduates, but like Thales, they often prove versatile and resourceful.
One remarkable feature of philosophy is its ability to foster critical thinking—a skill that is indispensable today, especially in an age where we are flooded with vast amounts of information daily.
So empirical evidence supports the need for philosophy, but honestly, the best answer to the question, "Oh, what are you going to do after graduating in philosophy?" is, "None of your business." Why should the applause of others measure your success?
i’ve got a friend who dislikes philosophy. he thinks it’s all self-important fart sniffers who like to write cryptically. that, and whatever they can think up is useless, because the world is obvious and there is no practical use for these thoughts. he can be a bit stubborn, so i can never quite explain why philosophy is important in a way he agrees with.
It takes only the slightest bit of curiosity to realize that the world is not obvious. Studying philosophy is a good way to tackle that directly (football again!), but really, studying anything at all will give it away.
Yes. Everyone without exception is like an archeological site. Which is to say that everything we think say and do is the product of many layers of unexamined presumptions. Even the language one uses conditions both ones perception and conception of what is real and possible
I agree, which is why I find it frustrating when certain philosophers are content to make a career of defending what they regard as self-evident or obvious notions.
In Dominion Tom Holland makes a pretty strong case for his claim that current Western morality, whether that of believers or of non-believers, derives not from the Enlightenment, philosophy or science, but essentially from the Christian tradi
tion - not a conclusion I as a philosopher and non-believer (and fan of Steven Pinker's reading of history) find welcome. In a YouTube debate with Holland, AC Grayling, by no means an intellectual lightweight, was imho not very impressive. I'd love a thorough chapter by chapter challenge to Holland's reading of history. But till such time I'm agnostic on precisely what the roots of science and modernity were. Furthermore, I have never read a defence of the foundational value of philosophy (or art, or imagination, for that matter) that seems to really deliver the goods. And though I enjoyed this piece, and felt its heart was in the right place, it hasn't delivered the goods, either, imho. Perhaps I should just be happy that I love these things. The absence of a defence of art that is powerful enough to win over skeptics won't change the fact that I was entranced by Dostoyevsky and Ravel today, and by Pessoa, Bach and Dennett yesterday, and am sure that those with no organ for anything like this are missing something extremely valuable.
We could split the difference and say that Christian theology has been, in many ways, a branch of philosophy. It's just that, unlike in Indian or Chinese or Arabic philosophy, particularly since the Protestant Reformation, theology has been associated with particular church institutions (Reformed, Lutheran, Catholic, etc.). The area of thought that has been called "theology" in Europe and the Americas over the last 5 centuries was a long-standing set of questions around ultimate meaning and collective ritual that found a place within every major geographic philosophical tradition since antiquity. Sometimes (in William James or Jean-Luc Marion or Alvin Plantinga or Alasdair MacIntyre or Charles Taylor or Elizabeth Anscombe) this set of concerns still intrudes in different ways on European and American philosophy, to the chagrin of many.
>As if we have not been hurt enough as individuals, our entire field is under attack by a managerial class convinced the only purpose of college is getting 22-year-olds their first job.
This has always struck me as one of the most concerning parts of the current zeitgeist.
>No one goes home eager to work on spreadsheets or wanting to send emails.
I actually know a decent number of people who do desire this. Money and business is really the only thing that matters to them. I don't think they're in the majority, but there are some people who just really seem to value nothing beyond that. It's an odd experience conversing with them. There is practically no conversation to be had beyond money, and that's hardly an exaggeration. Entertainment is just something they engage in when they're too tired to keep working.
>We don’t live to work; we work to live.
Agree based on what I think you mean here, i.e. work meaning a job. But as an artist/writer/Buddhist practitioner, I view my life mainly in service of my work in those domains. But that is a fairly renunciate perspective on it, I suppose. I would imagine that some of the people I mentioned above might view their jobs as their raison d'etre...but those are outliers (aside from entrepreneurs, maybe).
Thanks, yes, by “work” I meant “paid work.” Sure, there are people obsessed with money at the expense of all other goods, but that seems to me inapt: the value of money is instrumental, not intrinsic.
Your rants are more valuable than a lot of posts that are non-rants. This one is gold!
Thank you for writing it.
Thanks!
Yes, it’s time to stop justifying the study of Philosophy by pointing to how well-paid philosophy students can be in other careers. Amen to this whole post!
I loved this piece and its fire for philosophy
Thank you very much for this! I really needed it, today.
Fantastic piece!
I’ve recently had a couple of graduate engineering friends, playfully challenge me about the cultural devalue of Philosophy in America. They posed two supposedly antagonizing questions:
(1) What does philosophy actually make (construct)? To which I answered: our highly treasured scientific method and reasoned theories of natural, nation state, and international law (among other things).
(2) Why aren’t philosophers interviewed on, say, “60 Minutes” as are economists or political scientists?
To which I pointed out: check-book journalism may entice an interview with Snoop Dog or Martha Stewart on “60 Minutes.” But not current philosophers Noam Chomsky or John Haldane. Nor Karl Popper, were he still alive. In sum, genuine philosophers cannot be bought. Nor do they have agents “selling” their brands.
this is the kind of thing that drives me nuts. “what do they produce?” as if the sole purpose of humans is to produce or “create value.” ironically, if they spent a bit more time considering the world through a different lens, they might reason themselves out of this implanted value system.
That is very pretty text, amazing! The Philosophy will always fundamental in our society!
"If Ferraris were as ugly as sin, I doubt even the shallowest status-seekers would buy them."
Just one word: Cybertruck
Turns out cybertrucks aren’t too popular. https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/tesla-cuts-the-price-of-cybertruck-listings.html
Maybe colleges should make all incoming freshmen start with philosophy (at least some epistemology, ethics, logic) and then once that framework is in place, release them into other fields.
On the flip side, I’ve run into some young philosophers, suspended since childhood in academic jargon and formal arguments, who seem like they could use some life experience to broaden their perspective and temper their theoretical certainty. Maybe colleges should make these students go outside and play with other kids for a semester or two as part of their liberal education.
Right now those of us with little or no college are feeling buried by an unprecedented avalanche of data. We could use the shovel that practical philosophy provides. If only more philosophers would prioritize expressing themselves in a way we all can understand.
I’m quite sympathetic. And I certainly agree about clear expression. See my rant https://hilariusbookbinder.substack.com/p/why-must-philosophy-writing-be-so
Thanks. I enjoyed that. For a related rant from the perspective of a non-philosopher:
https://woolery.substack.com/p/god-joins-the-ranks-of-things-youll
"We are the inventors and architects of the scientific method."
I suppose that's one way of looking at it.
Another is that it wasn't until science was liberated from philosophy that any progress was made.
But, you know, tomato, tomahto.
Volvo invented the three-point seatbelt, but refused a patent in order to make it freely available to everyone. They just gave it away, to everyone’s benefit. What I’m saying is, you’re welcome.
Volvo's philosophers were responsible for the seatbelt, you say?
Or maybe I am getting confused about your point.....
They came up with the concept, gave it away, and others ran with it. Kind of like, well….
Kind of like...a quarterback? (The true value of higher education.)
Yup.
I tried listening to Wagner. One of us is really, really wrong.
Love that!
There are also some interesting statistics measuring the job market performance of college graduates. Philosophers actually perform quite well. Of course, it’s challenging to find a job specifically tailored to philosophy graduates, but like Thales, they often prove versatile and resourceful.
One remarkable feature of philosophy is its ability to foster critical thinking—a skill that is indispensable today, especially in an age where we are flooded with vast amounts of information daily.
So empirical evidence supports the need for philosophy, but honestly, the best answer to the question, "Oh, what are you going to do after graduating in philosophy?" is, "None of your business." Why should the applause of others measure your success?
i’ve got a friend who dislikes philosophy. he thinks it’s all self-important fart sniffers who like to write cryptically. that, and whatever they can think up is useless, because the world is obvious and there is no practical use for these thoughts. he can be a bit stubborn, so i can never quite explain why philosophy is important in a way he agrees with.
It takes only the slightest bit of curiosity to realize that the world is not obvious. Studying philosophy is a good way to tackle that directly (football again!), but really, studying anything at all will give it away.
Yes. Everyone without exception is like an archeological site. Which is to say that everything we think say and do is the product of many layers of unexamined presumptions. Even the language one uses conditions both ones perception and conception of what is real and possible
I agree, which is why I find it frustrating when certain philosophers are content to make a career of defending what they regard as self-evident or obvious notions.
In Dominion Tom Holland makes a pretty strong case for his claim that current Western morality, whether that of believers or of non-believers, derives not from the Enlightenment, philosophy or science, but essentially from the Christian tradi
tion - not a conclusion I as a philosopher and non-believer (and fan of Steven Pinker's reading of history) find welcome. In a YouTube debate with Holland, AC Grayling, by no means an intellectual lightweight, was imho not very impressive. I'd love a thorough chapter by chapter challenge to Holland's reading of history. But till such time I'm agnostic on precisely what the roots of science and modernity were. Furthermore, I have never read a defence of the foundational value of philosophy (or art, or imagination, for that matter) that seems to really deliver the goods. And though I enjoyed this piece, and felt its heart was in the right place, it hasn't delivered the goods, either, imho. Perhaps I should just be happy that I love these things. The absence of a defence of art that is powerful enough to win over skeptics won't change the fact that I was entranced by Dostoyevsky and Ravel today, and by Pessoa, Bach and Dennett yesterday, and am sure that those with no organ for anything like this are missing something extremely valuable.
A full defense would require a book, and books tend to reach niche audiences. I thought a Substack piece could be more succinct and cast a wider net.
We could split the difference and say that Christian theology has been, in many ways, a branch of philosophy. It's just that, unlike in Indian or Chinese or Arabic philosophy, particularly since the Protestant Reformation, theology has been associated with particular church institutions (Reformed, Lutheran, Catholic, etc.). The area of thought that has been called "theology" in Europe and the Americas over the last 5 centuries was a long-standing set of questions around ultimate meaning and collective ritual that found a place within every major geographic philosophical tradition since antiquity. Sometimes (in William James or Jean-Luc Marion or Alvin Plantinga or Alasdair MacIntyre or Charles Taylor or Elizabeth Anscombe) this set of concerns still intrudes in different ways on European and American philosophy, to the chagrin of many.
Tom Holland Sucks!
>As if we have not been hurt enough as individuals, our entire field is under attack by a managerial class convinced the only purpose of college is getting 22-year-olds their first job.
This has always struck me as one of the most concerning parts of the current zeitgeist.
>No one goes home eager to work on spreadsheets or wanting to send emails.
I actually know a decent number of people who do desire this. Money and business is really the only thing that matters to them. I don't think they're in the majority, but there are some people who just really seem to value nothing beyond that. It's an odd experience conversing with them. There is practically no conversation to be had beyond money, and that's hardly an exaggeration. Entertainment is just something they engage in when they're too tired to keep working.
>We don’t live to work; we work to live.
Agree based on what I think you mean here, i.e. work meaning a job. But as an artist/writer/Buddhist practitioner, I view my life mainly in service of my work in those domains. But that is a fairly renunciate perspective on it, I suppose. I would imagine that some of the people I mentioned above might view their jobs as their raison d'etre...but those are outliers (aside from entrepreneurs, maybe).
Really enjoyed this post, thanks for writing it!
Thanks, yes, by “work” I meant “paid work.” Sure, there are people obsessed with money at the expense of all other goods, but that seems to me inapt: the value of money is instrumental, not intrinsic.