I recently broached this next topic with a friend of mine (two friends of mine, really); philosophy. I will be the first person to denounce it, all the time, and say how its dumb and all this. I'm not going to suddenly have a change of heart here, though; I really dislike it. This is despite the fact that one of my childhood friends is studying it at McGill, that one of my best friends is studying it here at UofT, that many people I am good friends with enjoy it greatly....I mean, yeah, you can't allow others to influence you, but you can at least tolerate it for their sakes. In my case, this is not what is going to happen.
I will readily admit that my dislike for philosophy came in high school, where it was ruined by my god-awful teacher. He was probably in his 60s, and he had clearly done a LOT of drugs as a youth. He had been a former RCMP officer, and now he was a guitar-playing philosophy high school teacher. He also taught ethics and something else, but really, no one cared about that...well, no one cared about ANY of his courses, but still. Anyway, he was really just a poor teacher; we ended up just watching the Matrix, and he had this ridiculous system of marking where you could not do ANY work the whole year, and just hand it all in at the end of the year, not suffer any late penalties, and indeed still submit OTHER work and get extra credit! I kid you not when I say my friend, the one from McGill, got ONE HUNDRED PERCENT in this class, despite having done LESS work than I. My summative assignment for this class? Write an essay on 'the meaning of life'. What the hell? I just wrote things about Hakuna Matata and other abstract garbage like that, referenced a few philosophers on the subject of nihilism, and took my 85 in the class, graduated from high school, and never looked back.
But, truthfully, I really dislike philosophy on a more fundamental level than a crappy high school teacher. It is just not practical in any way, shape or form. What can I possible learn from philosophy that I can apply to real life? Not much, I'll tell you that. I can learn a bunch of abstract concepts on what an 'object' is, or 'what time is', or what an artificial construct is. What IS an artificial construct, you might ask? The answer is: no one cares. I mean, I will also admit that I study something that is almost as useless: english. I am majoring in English, and minoring in Political Science and Music History. When am I ever going to apply anything that I learned in Canadian Fiction from a super boring book by Margaret Atwood in real life? When am I ever going to say 'well, damn, I'm glad I know the sound of Beethoven's Symphony no. 9 by heart! Thanks, university!' The answer is, probably never. To be fair, the professor of the Beethoven course I took said at the outset of the class that semester that if we could whip out a few facts about Beethoven at a dinner party to impress a few ladies (or gentlemen), then 'a job well done for him', but still (I kid you not, those were his exact words).
Still, though. I don't learn anything useful from philosophy. Matteo told me that philosophy teaches you to think critically and logically, and another friend told me that philosophy was good because it led to the advent of psychology, more or less. I have to say, I disagree with those assertions. I'm not disputing the fact that philosophy led to psychology, b/c it's probably true, but I'm just saying I don't think it's good BECAUSE of that. I mean, as a student, I don't need to have studied philosophy in order to have learned how to think critically and logically. MOST subjects will teach you THAT; even with my useless English major, I can honestly say I've learned to think both critically and logically, from learning how to write a better essay, to critically analyzing a passage of text/novel, to understanding the deeper meaning behind both the author's words and the professor's words. I've done the same with political science, and to a lesser degree, music history. At least with those three subjects, I also learn something else; I learn a policy or history of a country, or I learn a piece of music, or I've read a sweet book or bettered my writing skills. What do I gain with philosophy? A bunch of abstract garbage that is not applicable to real life in the slightest. To be fair, a LOT of the stuff you learn in university is never going to be directly applicable to real life (let's say I eventually work for Obama or something like that; he's never going to ask me 'What would Machiavelli do in this situation?' He'd ask me something wayyyy more relevant), but philosophy just seems to be even MORE irrelevant, especially in this day and age.
I don't HATE philosophy, don't get me wrong. I just think it's really silly, and somewhat of a waste of time, especially for people to be studying in university. But, hey, at least I'm not talking about Equity Studies. Now THERE is something I could rail on forever; who needs a professor to teach me what is right and what is wrong? I'm sure there are SOME people who need to be educated in these things, but I mean, it's really just common sense, don't you think?
Anyway. I was woken up by an inadvertent facebook message (my blackberry reset, and when it turned itself back on, the fb application turned on the notifications again...so when someone posts on my wall, it buzzes), and couldn't sleep. I feel sleepiness setting in again, so...off to bed I go, once more!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCongratulations, you've gotten me away from studying - Social and Cultural Philosophy - for a moment so that I can respond to this post.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I gather, your main concern with philosophy is that it isn't applicable to "real" life and it is therefore useless. My answer to this is that philosophy is more "real" than what you consider "real" life to be. Philosophy is all about the fundamental aspect that makes us human - i.e. a thinking, self aware, emotionally driven being. Philosophy is not fundamentally studied to be applicable to the "real" world, it is studied for its own sake, to satisfy the human desire to comprehend and understand.
All aspects of our "real" life: politics, society, theology, culture, etc. are rooted in thought and are grounded upon ideals and foundations compiled by a thinker or set of thinkers - philosophers - at some given point in time. In fact, the entirety of "Western" thought and ideas - which are the foundations of "real" life, or what I understand to be your interpretation of "real" life - can be traced back to the ancient Greek philosophy - of which Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are the most influential.
Also, while philosophy can act as a guide on how the "real" world should formulate itself and dictate human interaction, it will never be completely applicable to the "real" world for the sole fact that the "real" world is comprised of that which is forever external to us - physical nature, and other beings, etc., - and philosophy is all about the internal, the mind, the spirit, ideas, or what have you.
This is my rudimentary interpretation of Philosophy, so take it with a grain of salt. I am of the belief that philosophy is a fundamental aspect of being human, and like it or not we are a knowledge-based, inquisitive, philosophical creature. Variation occurs in the differentiation between people's experience actively engaged in philosophical thought and their exposure to and cultivation of differing ideas and modes of thinking. Your post is ironic: by offering your critique of philosophy, you are in fact doing it.
P.S.
Forget the first comment I made, I found a grammatical error in my original post - I had "by a thinker or a set of thinker" when it should have been "a thinker or a set of thinkers". Minor thing I know, but I just had to change it or else I wouldn't be able to sleep at night.
Uhmmm rude. Equity Studies is legit thank you very much. Unlike several other subjects, you can apply what you learn in Equity Studies to everyday life, and I also guarantee that you would learn a lot of insightful information that you never considered or thought about in relation to how you act or react to different types of people.
ReplyDeletethat is all I am going to say about that lol, probably would have had more to say if this post was actually about the subject.
Also, I agree with you, Philosophy is a waste of time (Sorry Matteo!)
I guess to reply to Matteo's comment:
ReplyDeleteI don't particularly care for abstract ideas like finding out what makes us a 'thinking, self-aware, emotionally driven human being'. How does that help us at all in the real world? Sure, it satisfies an innate curiosity that I'm sure most (if not all) human beings have had at one point or another, but how does that help you when you go find a job or something? The answer: it doesn't.
Just like the psychology comment that I made in the original post, it's wonderful that philosophy led to things like politics and theology and all that...it just doesn't matter any more. What's the purpose of learning that politics were created by people like Socrates? There IS no purpose, not any MORE. I understand respecting the present by honouring the past, but let's face it, it's not practical any more.
I don't particularly mind OR care that I am doing (can you DO philosophy?) philosophy, by posting about it; the point is, it's a useless subject to study in university, it's a useless subject to take on as a job/career, and it no longer contributes to the world in any useful way.
To go to equity studies, though...it's just marginally LESS useful than philosophy. I'm sure everyone who reads this blog knows that the CLC at our college took equity studies and went on to a job that she not only loves but is very good at; THERE is an example of it being useful/applicable. For the most part, however, not everyone is going to end up in that situation.
I fully admit that with an English degree, that's also only marginally more useful to the world than philosophy or equity studies...but, I guess the key for all three of those things is that it's something that people can enjoy, within themselves. I can't understand for the life of me why anyone would enjoy the other two, but I suppose people can't understand why I enjoy English, so it balances out. This is my blog, though, so I can say what I want =P
I think where we have a disagreement is how much value we place on the given topic/idea/subject/thing = philosophy. For you philosophy plays no practical importance to your life, that's fine, but I don't think that makes it an unworthy academic discipline - again, I maintain that it is the undercurrent for all disciplines. That is just your subjective perception of philosophy, it does not make it objectively valid.
ReplyDeleteIt's all about perspective. For some "finding a job" or other mundane aspects of this "real" world is not the end-all-be-all of human existence. Some finding it exciting and exhilarating to push their intellect as far as it can go, to try to understand and grasp the limitless potential of the human mind. To do this is an undertaking not many can achieve - and many less appreciate. To fully know yourself and the world around you is an impossible task but I find the pursuit of this knowledge to be an awesome one.
I leave you with a few questions that I'd like you to answer before we proceed with the discussion, just so I know exactly where you are coming from:
1) What is your conception of the real world?
2) Why is it no longer "practical" to study philosophy, as "there is no purpose, not any MORE"? What was it about the past that gave philosophy a purpose? Why is this no longer applicable in the present?
PS
If you are basing the worth of academic disciplines on the "real" world through potential career options/jobs - as you noted Kristina studying Equity and being the CLC as an example of that subject being "useful/applicable" - I'd like to point out that Mr. Victoria himself President Gooch has a PhD in Philosophy and he also teaches it at U of T.
I gotta say, reading everyone’s thoughts and opinions on this topic and coming up with my own rsponse is quite interesting. This is a wonderful way to celebrate finishing an exam.
ReplyDeleteI myself am not much of a fan of philosophy. My one and only real philosophy course was my seminar class back in first year, on thought experiments. It was pretty neat, especially coming from a more practical science/research-based background, to learn that experiments could be “thought of” and not actually implemented to attempt to solve problems and debates. The experiments were so impractical and ridiculous, but they actually worked, which really surprised me! But for the most part, it wasn’t exactly my cup of tea. While the questions were really intriguing, it required a little too much thinking and imagination on my part, sometimes it was mind exploding, which wasn’t something I was used to at all.
But even so, that seminar class really gave me the experience to think outside the box and explore some topics that I otherwise may not have even come across or considered on my own. I also remember my prof making an effort to use examples that were more “relevant” to topics in our modern world, like the ethics involving organ transplantation as well as when to pronounce someone dead, which were topics I also happened to have encountered in some psych classes as well as the religion class I recently took. Especially with the ethics of pronouncing someone dead, there is still a lot of controversy over the declaration of death today (is it when the heart stops beating, or when there is no brain activity, etc.), and part of the debate stems from the famous “mind-body” problem in philosophy, which to my knowledge, has still not been resolved. From a more psychological perspective, many philosophical frameworks provide the basis of a lot of psychological questions that are still being debated today, like explanations of our behaviours, theories of our cognitive functions, and also how learning occurs, etc. I won’t bore you with the details on those, though. I think I talk enough about psychology with everyone, haha.
I do agree with you Sho, philosophy doesn’t seem to have much of a direct route in any sort of specific career or job in today’s day and age. But then again, as mentioned, many other disciplines hardly do. Even in psych, the common direct route that everyone knows about and automatically assmumes is to go to grad school for research or clinical practise, routes that really only fit (and accept) a small handful of people. I am probably not going to go through either of them myself, and my parents think I am wasting my time studying it in university. But I still continue studying psych anyway because it really interests me, as everyone probably knows by now. So whatever we’re all studying, we’re studying it because we like it and want to learn more about it, regardless of whether or not our future careers will really be based on it. In addition. what we’re studying will provide us with many underlying skills that will be useful in whatever we all end up doing. It’s the act of actually gaining the skills, regardless of where we learn them, that is most important to me. Yes, skills like critical and logical thinking can be gained from other courses or other experiences, but I do believe philosophy is a valid way to learn these skills, and it fits well for certain people. It may not work for me and you, but it sure seems to work for Matteo and many other students and professors who appreciate it.
Hehe, and yes, this is your blog. You of all people know how much I encourage people to write about what is on their mind and anything they wish to share. So while I presented my views on this topic, I also fully respect your thoughts (and Matteo’s and Rebecca’s thoughts as well)! =)
k, first of all, I made a huge disclaimer saying that this is my blog. Therefore, I am entitled to say what I want. I never said that what I say here is 'objectively valid'; if that's what you took from this, then I'm afraid you misinterpreted what I wrote. These are, as all of the posts have been, my own personal thoughts. If you, or anyone else, thinks that *I* think that what I say = law, then you have all badly misjudged me. As much as that would be awesome, I'm not so arrogant to think that; once again, these are my own personal views. No one is going to change my mind of the view that philosophy is useless, and I doubt I'm going to change anyone ELSE's mind; I post things because I feel like it.
ReplyDelete"Some finding it exciting and exhilarating to push their intellect as far as it can go, to try to understand and grasp the limitless potential of the human mind. To do this is an undertaking not many can achieve - and many less appreciate." Oh my goodness. I know we're friends, but this is probably one of the most condescending things anyone has ever said to me. While it's awesome that you feel that philosophy can do this for you, I sincerely hope you don't assume that it's the ONLY way to achieve/appreciate something like this; simply by saying something like this seems to imply that exact thing. I'm sure you don't feel that way, but if you do, that's sad.
1) My conception of the real world? I have no idea. I don't want to say something so you can trap me and then go 'aha! that's philosophy! sucks for you!'
2) There's no more to gain from philosophy. It led to developments we NOW have; democracy, politics, etc. What MORE is philosophy going to do within those disciplines? It's also not going to evolve ANOTHER discipline. If anything, new disciplines are going to come from the ones that philosophy has ALREADY spawned. I said it before, but, while it's great that philosophy has spawned such things, it's time for THOSE fields to further themselves; they're not going to do it with philosophy's help. Like I said, if I were to magically work for Barack Obama, he's not going to ask me a philosophical question, he's going to ask me something practical that I can apply to the real world.
Finally, I realize that not many people know this, but, I guess now is as good a time to tell you as any: President Gooch, as awesome as the man is, has the most useless job at Vic, with Cook behind him with 2nd most useless job. They LITERALLY get paid to sit behind a desk and chat up alumni/sign Crescams/sign other certificates/degrees/host alumni, etc etc. Very much unlike Kristina, who...you know, actually does real work. The college would very much get by the way it does now without Gooch OR Cook (as much as I like them both). Also, a PhD in philosophy? Good god. What does that even mean? For me, it means a lot of time wasted. Yes, he's the President of Vic, but that's not to say he got it BECAUSE he has a philosophy degree. ANYONE with a PhD could have gotten this job, so bringing him up as an example of something 'useful/applicable' is not a very good one.
Awesome post Jenn! I pretty much agree with everything you've said!
ReplyDeleteSho, I know this is your blog and you write whatever your opinions are on here and that's great, I was just offering an alternative view, from the perspective of someone who studies the discipline your original post so aggressively disregarded.
As for me offending you with my "condescending" comment I never asserted that philosophy was the only avenue to "to try to understand and grasp the limitless potential of the human mind" just that philosophy is, in my opinion, one of the best ways to achieve this simply due to the fact that that is what philosophy is - to study the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. If it came off as I was asserting that philosophy was the only way to achieve this then I apologize, I was making this assertion within the context of the debate - the use/uselessness of philosophy.
I (still) completely disagree with your assertion that philosophy has no use in the modern world. I don't think humanity has reached it's teological peak and philosophy (not the discipline as an academic field, but the process thinking, reflection, and critique) will continue to bring new ideas forward and we as an intellectual species will continue to evolve.
I also find it somewhat bold of you to completely right off the job of both the President and the Principle of Vic. I'll grant that I am ignorant as to what their specific mandate is - outside being university professors - but to completely call their job "useless", well that's a whole other discussion. I'd also like to note that Dean Castle also has an Masters Degree in Philosophy.
I will reiterate my belief that it is impossible to disregard philosophy as it is a fundamental aspect of the human condition. I am not making a statement about it's value in terms of "practical" purposes of getting a job or whatever I am just saying that I understand why people study it (I am minoring in Philosophy because I enjoy it, not for any other purpose and regardless of its "practical" use). Maybe I was hoping I could change your mind or make you reconsider a couple of your assertions, but I guess I have failed - I am not a philosopher, not yet. Regardless this was awesome and we should debate this kind of stuff more often! It was fun!
(I'm going to have to post this next comment in two parts, so bear with me >_>)
ReplyDeleteOne last thing: another reason I posted this whole thing on philosophy was also because I was having this conversation on that internet message board I've been going to for the past few years. I brought up your points, matteo, and this is what one person said:
"I've never taken a post-secondary-level Philosophy course in my life, so perhaps there is something I'm missing, but for what it's worth I agree with the sentiments posted that, in terms of job-hunting, it's a useless degree. About the only people I know who use their philosophy degrees for job-hunting are people like cops or tradespeople who get bumped up to a higher pay bracket if they have a degree of some type.
So why is that? When a great deal of our society is patterned off of the works of scholars and philosophers of the ancient world, why don't they have a place in it today? As your friend put it, "Why is it no longer "practical" to study philosophy, as "there is no purpose, not any MORE"? What was it about the past that gave philosophy a purpose? Why is this no longer applicable in the present? "
Personally, I think it has to do with a changing of the times. Keep in mind that in the time of Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates, academics were a rare breed. Even if we move forward and talk about Marx, Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke, basic literacy was still considered to be an upper-classman's skill. There was no internet or international publishing houses and, as such, exchange of ideas was very limited.
Philosophers were valued back then because they were amongst a handful of people equipped to do their job. When they debated with one another in plazas and people showed up to listen in, it was because they were respected as learned leaders, a handful of academic elite that understood the machinations of humanity and the world the way a common man never could.
It has only really been in the last 100-150 years, in the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution, that we have turned from an agricultural species - where labour was effectively the most essential resource on the planet - to a more academic one. Mandatory schooling now takes even a below-average student to levels of education that most of the ancient philosophers would have only dreamed of. Thanks to the internet, information can be passed along almost unfettered and we are free to discuss ideas with whomever we please. The culture that bred important philosophers - that of a largely uneducated , illiterate society unequppied for thinking on levels we would consider rudimentary - no longer exists. Effectively, ANYONE can be a philosopher today. We're all functionally equipped for it, even if we don't have a degree saying that we specialize in it. This is why there are no widely regarded modern philosophers today. The closest we get are people like the Dalai Lama, and even then most of the points people like him preach about are what we would call "conventional wisdom": ideas that we're already aware of, but that we occasionally need to be reminded about.
And that's why philosophers were valued more in the past than they are today. Amongst an illiterate, uneducated populace, they were orators who could masterfully articulate an underlying idea that we housed in our collective subconscious. Now? That's considered a basic skill learned in high school. (continued...)
(continued from before) One need look no further than this very board for a puissant example of that fact. Back in the times of the ancient philosophers, the ability to debate was considered a rare skill. You had to be literate, articulate, and well-versed on the subject material. Listening to someone debate was a big deal, because the average commoner lacked both the skill and the knowledge to carry one out. Now? We, a bunch of twenty-somethings from a plethora of different backgrounds, professions, and education levels, debate in our spare time. It's a hobby for us. With the use of the internet, we can effortlessly bring ourselves up to speed on a given issue and trade information with our debate partners in order to reinforce our point. This would have been something unthinkable in Plato's time. In the debate we just had between Monty and myself, we both were effectively "playing the philosopher" - citing our viewpoints and arguing their merits. Yet my degree has almost nothing to do with philosophy and, though I don't know Monty's educational background, I don't think he is a Philosophy major either.
ReplyDeleteI can't fault your friend's pursuit of academic knowledge - Lord knows I loved that aspect of University - but I question whether a post-secondary institution is the proper venue for education on philosophy these days. Universities and Colleges typically train people in skills and disciplines that society has a need and desire for. Somehow I don't think philosophy fits that bill anymore. I have no problem of pursuing knowledge for its own sake, but if it has no practical application I think it's better served by a club or organization rather than a formal academic institution."
I pretty much agree with everything he said, as he can phrase and debate things was better than I. I was curious to see what you thought of what he said. Also, yes, you may find it bold that I just wrote off the Principal and President, but unfortunately, that's the truth. Two straight years of dealing with them through VUSAC has only served to reinforce that truth that they have pretty goddamn useless jobs, and are paid like crazy for it. Again, it's wonderful that Gooch and Castle have degrees in philosophy, but again, they don't have their jobs BECAUSE of it. Kristina has her job BECAUSE of her degree; her situation and Gooch/Castle situations are wildly different.
Man, I always forget to read your blog, and miss out on the crazy debate. Also, I should read it more because I never talk to you.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, re: Philosophy, I think Jenn and Matteo tackled that pretty well. IMHO, it's kind of like studying history, in that it's important to learn the foundations of where our knowledge comes from, challenge where our knowledge comes from in the first place and whether or not it's valid, and to apply to our lives now (like Jenn's example of dead/alive; Evan was telling me about his philosophy class on artificial intelligence and what constitutes consciousness - there's another example of something highly relevant and important to think about). Also, though I've never taken a philosophy class before, don't they learn a lot of logic? In a way that you don't really learn in a lot of other disciplines. And logic is pretty freaking important, and also fairly useful on your LSATs, so I've heard.
Philosophy is pretty much as "useless" as English, if not more so. Really, in English, you read a bunch of stories; in Philosophy, you read writing by philosophers; in both, you write critical essays. I don't really see the difference. I don't think that English is a useless discipline, partly because I really love reading fiction, but also because of something my professor quoted in class once - that "literature is equipment for living." And it is. It teaches us about ourselves, about human nature, about big ideas about how we relate to the world and each other. And philosophy pretty much performs a similar function, only using less metaphors and rhetorical devices.
As far as Gooch goes, maybe you have a different perspective than I do, having been on Exec, but in my experience doing Sustainability Policy stuff, it seems like he has his finger in a lot of different things at Vic, not just being a representative (which itself is a lot of work). I see it comparable to being VUSAC President, in a way (I mean, obviously NOT the same thing, but as a comparison) - but the commissions do a lot of the event planning/service providing etc within VUSAC, much like Kristina does a lot of the on the ground work, whereas the VUSAC President meets with people and argues over policy and makes big decisions and such and needs to know what's going on all over council and coordinate people, and that (in my albeit limited perspective) is what Gooch does.
I'm not quite as utilitarian as you are, so I don't really believe that university is JUST about translatable skills but about learning about yourself and the world and thinking big things and challenging your view of why things are the way they are and other fruity shit like that - if it was just job training, why not just go to college? Plus, all the facts and figures and policies of countries you learn in university you often forget, anyway. i.e. what I retained from the bio exam I just wrote = nothing. And Human Bio is a super "let's apply this to real life" program.
To me, Equity Studies is just as legitimate as anything else - especially because 80% of the courses you end up taking aren't offered by the department, but are from other disciplines (i.e. English and Political Science and Anthropology and even Human Biology).
ReplyDeleteAs far as "But, hey, at least I'm not talking about Equity Studies. Now THERE is something I could rail on forever; who needs a professor to teach me what is right and what is wrong? I'm sure there are SOME people who need to be educated in these things, but I mean, it's really just common sense, don't you think?" goes -- yeah, you're being just as condescending there as you accuse Matteo of being, seriously.
Equity Studies is NOT all about "how to be nice to other people" or whatever, but about looking at the world and the fundamental inequities that are actually REALLY easy to miss and critiquing them and looking at ways to fix it. We're fed a lot of bullshit by the media and by our leaders and by each other that is patently not true but that we believe anyway, and it is stuff that impacts people on a day to day basis. Gender, for instance - to take a more obvious example, take that runner who people think shouldn't be running in the women's division of the Olympics because she has really high levels of testosterone. Dial back that argument to Equity Studies, and my Queer Writing class, where we discuss what gender really is - is it embedded in our bodies, or is it all a social construct? How much is sex socially constructed? How are gender binaries harmful? etc etc etc.
On a very personal level, what I want to do with my degree in Equity Studies is to go on and work in food security policy. Access to good food (and the impact of food upon people's lives) is hugely affected by inequities in both obvious and NOT obvious ways and it's one of the most important issues we face. Even on a global politics scale, food riots are huge and the way we subsidize our crops and structure our policies on food aid deeply affect how people in developing countries live.