The Student Room Group

Why Philosophy is a genuinely AWESOME degree

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Athematica
My understanding is that the 2 years of logic is irregular relative to other degrees

Apologies, but I did a lot of research when choosing the universities I applied to. Most universities do not state on their websites that logic is compulsory in years 1&2, but when you find their complete list of modules (with descriptions of each), you will find that logic must be studied in years 1 & 2.
Original post by Platopus
Apologies, but I did a lot of research when choosing the universities I applied to. Most universities do not state on their websites that logic is compulsory in years 1&2, but when you find their complete list of modules (with descriptions of each), you will find that logic must be studied in years 1 & 2.


Then my understanding is probably flawed. That's fine. Just a curiosity.
Original post by Athematica
Then my understanding is probably flawed. That's fine. Just a curiosity.

No worries.
Original post by !!mentor!!
Philosophy has to be regarded as useless as Gender Studies or Art History because you can quite literally make stuff up to answer exam questions and get top marks.

For example students in a Philosophy exam were also asked to use all their philosophical knowledge to prove why a chair, placed at the front of the room, didn’t exist. While many scribbled down different theories one student simply wrote ‘What chair?’

In another Philosophy exam, a student was said to receive top marks when answering the one word question ‘Why?’ with ‘Why not?

In another exam students are reported to have been asked ‘What is courage?’ One is said to have returned a blank page saying ‘This is.’

It is reasons like this that most people don't highly regard Philosophy.

But saying that, if I didn't have to work for a living, i'd likely study Philosophy also.


Are you so stupid that you actually believe these cases happened? Or even if they did happen, that they happen on a regular basis and therefore make Philosophy useless? You must have a negative IQ.
Original post by Betelgeuse-
Get paid and get laid the philosophy of the finchmeister


kek
Because you have lots of time to party? Especially when you can't find a job after school.
Reply 66
Descartes is my home boy
Reply 67
All I know is that I took one philosophy module in my first year for Maths and got 99% :tongue: (logic)

In seriousness I considered applying for Philosophy for a while and I have a lot of respect for the subject
Reply 68
+1
Original post by Tabstercat
Are you so stupid that you actually believe these cases happened? Or even if they did happen, that they happen on a regular basis and therefore make Philosophy useless? You must have a negative IQ.


Hey guys, I found another philosoNazi ^^^^.

#triggered more times than John Wayne's hand gun.

Spoiler

Original post by !!mentor!!
Hey guys, I found another philosoNazi ^^^^.

#triggered more times than John Wayne's hand gun.

Spoiler



If that means encouraging people to try a subject they could enjoy hugely, and will help them develop intellectually, I'll be a 'philosonazi'

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Tabstercat
Are you so stupid that you actually believe these cases happened? Or even if they did happen, that they happen on a regular basis and therefore make Philosophy useless? You must have a negative IQ.


This doesn't strike me as very encouraging, intention aside :lol:

edit: Ah. Wrong one!
Original post by !!mentor!!
Hey guys, I found another philosoNazi ^^^^.

#triggered more times than John Wayne's hand gun.

Spoiler



idiot.jpg
Reply 73
Original post by SunnysideSea
.


While I definitely agree that Philosophy is a subject worthy of more merit than it is often afforded, I don't quite agree that modern science is dependent on philosophy. Yes, before, they were one and the same, and grew apart slowly.

Today however science operates separately from philosophy. While Kuhn did analyse the process of discovery, that discovery occurred independent of philosophy. Yes, the point that scientists have to take a step back sometimes (and perhaps philosophers are better placed for this) is a valid one, but I don't think it's true to say that science today is inherently reliant on philosophy. In this way I'd also disagree with point 6 - it's a stretch to say the technology driving the modern world was created 'because of philosophy'. Philosophy was a stepping stone on the road to true empiricism, and there the paths diverged..

Also I think you're underestimating the quantitative elements of a degree in the physical sciences. You do a LOT of maths as a physicist/chemist/engineer that philosophers never go near. Logic is very challenging but, as you say yourself, it's an entirely different branch of quantitative study. Furthermore I feel your accusation of people failing to respect the quantitative nature of philosophy also ignores the very argument-based, essay-based elements of (some of) the life sciences.

I completely agree that it's a great subject, very interesting and useful to the people who study it. But I'm just not sure it can be justified as being as employable as a STEM degree. And since I don't see philosophy graduates dominating the world as we know it, I don't know whether the weight you are implying of the degree in point 5 (compared to others) is realized in real life either.

Philosophy deserves respect as a rigorous and quantitative humanities subject. I don't think it should be compared to the likes of physics and medicine because that's not where it belongs. Many of those who study philosophy are dedicated, skilled, intelligent people who have chosen to study that subject because they love it and will find success through the skills they gain in the course, if not through the course title itself.

I guess what I'm saying is I don't think people should diss philosophy either but to me the argument these days is for the subject in it's own right rather than for how much it one-ups other subjects.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Thorsas
While I definitely agree that Philosophy is a subject worthy of more merit than it is often afforded, I don't quite agree that modern science is dependent on philosophy. Yes, before, they were one and the same, and grew apart slowly.

Today however science operates separately from philosophy. While Kuhn did analyse the process of discovery, that discovery occurred independent of philosophy. Yes, the point that scientists have to take a step back sometimes (and perhaps philosophers are better placed for this) is a valid one, but I don't think it's true to say that science today is inherently reliant on philosophy. In this way I'd also disagree with point 6 - it's a stretch to say the technology driving the modern world was created 'because of philosophy'. Philosophy was a stepping stone on the road to true empiricism, and there the paths diverged..

Also I think you're underestimating the quantitative elements of a degree in the physical sciences. You do a LOT of maths as a physicist/chemist/engineer that philosophers never go near. Logic is very challenging but, as you say yourself, it's an entirely different branch of quantitative study. Furthermore I feel your accusation of people failing to respect the quantitative nature of philosophy also ignores the very argument-based, essay-based elements of (some of) the life sciences.

I completely agree that it's a great subject, very interesting and useful to the people who study it. But I'm just not sure it can be justified as being as employable as a STEM degree. And since I don't see philosophy graduates dominating the world as we know it, I don't know whether the weight you are implying of the degree in point 5 (compared to others) is realized in real life either.

Philosophy deserves respect as a rigorous and quantitative humanities subject. I don't think it should be compared to the likes of physics and medicine because that's not where it belongs. Many of those who study philosophy are dedicated, skilled, intelligent people who have chosen to study that subject because they love it and will find success through the skills they gain in the course, if not through the course title itself.

I guess what I'm saying is I don't think people should diss philosophy either but to me the argument these days is for the subject in it's own right rather than for how much it one-ups other subjects.


Hey dude, thanks for the post,

I don't think I ever claimed Philosophy graduates 'dominated the world', though I'm not sure any particular degree does (with the possible, and lamentable, exception of PPE - though this does contain Philosophy!) I believe that degrees are what you make of them, and any degree subject from a respected institution can get you into most careers if you make the effort. My point, as you were, I think, suggesting, was more that Philosophy equips its students with tremendously well-rounded skills, moulding them into excellent future business people and professionals, while giving them a subject they will likely cherish for the rest of their lives.

On the one hand you say philosophy was a 'stepping stone' to true empiricism, and on the other you say science isn't dependent on philosophy. This seems like a contradiction, since, by your own admission, empirical science wouldn't have been reached without philosophy. If something cannot exist without another thing, it is reliant upon that other thing having existed.:smile:

I have lots of respect for science students also. The material is clearly challenging, and I admire the sacrifice some science students make to study, frankly, very dull subject material over what, to me at least, seems the eminently more interesting material of the humanities. But that's just a personal reason, as I know some genuinely enjoy the sciences' subject material too, especially in Physics. Hearing about the structure of a root hair cell for an hour, though, just makes me want to self harm.

I think Philosophy and Science have a great deal in common, and are best when working alongside each other. If I ever said Philosophy was the best degree then I was wrong, there is one degree, which I know Oxford do, which is definitively the best degree available in this country for those seeking intellectual nirvana: BA Physics and Philosophy.

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by SunnysideSea
.


I'm also a philosophy student who is very much interesting in maths/science. You might like this from Peter Boghossian
http://www.philosophersmag.com/index.php/tpm-mag-articles/11-essays/131-want-to-be-good-at-philosophy-study-maths-and-science
Original post by SunnysideSea
I wouldn't claim it's superior to a maths degree per se, although it would probably make you the superior communicator of the two. In terms of analytic skill (prized by businesses, and vital for a career in, say, management consultancy), philosophy is second to none. No Law essay, for example, will be as complex as to require formal Logic to arrive at a reasoned conclusion. In philosophy it is very rare that you can just 'give your opinion' without considerable reason to back it up (like you can in English or Geography - not to day these aren't also subjects of huge interest and importance). Maths and Engineering are excellent degrees also, but if you're determined, philosophy offers just as superb employment prospects (and, if I may say so, much more interesting material)

Posted from TSR Mobile


It is very rare in ANY degree to ever submit an opinion without reasoning. Academic papers require evidence and failure to do so would likely result in a fail and/or plagiarism accusation. Philosophy isn't the only degree that requires you to use other work and allow it to develop your own ideas.

Now, if you could continue making your point without belittling degrees that you have obviously never done before, then I would maybe respect your views a bit more. You can't argue that philosophy is any more complex and valuable than any other degree, especially when you have no experience in those degrees. Unless of course, you want to provide me with the formal logic and extensive reasoning you keep banging on about?
Reply 77
Original post by SunnysideSea
Hey dude, thanks for the post,

I don't think I ever claimed Philosophy graduates 'dominated the world', though I'm not sure any particular degree does (with the possible, and lamentable, exception of PPE - though this does contain Philosophy!) I believe that degrees are what you make of them, and any degree subject from a respected institution can get you into most careers if you make the effort. My point, as you were, I think, suggesting, was more that Philosophy equips its students with tremendously well-rounded skills, moulding them into excellent future business people and professionals, while giving them a subject they will likely cherish for the rest of their lives.

On the one hand you say philosophy was a 'stepping stone' to true empiricism, and on the other you say science isn't dependent on philosophy. This seems like a contradiction, since, by your own admission, empirical science wouldn't have been reached without philosophy. If something cannot exist without another thing, it is reliant upon that other thing having existed.:smile:

I have lots of respect for science students also. The material is clearly challenging, and I admire the sacrifice some science students make to study, frankly, very dull subject material over what, to me at least, seems the eminently more interesting material of the humanities. But that's just a personal reason, as I know some genuinely enjoy the sciences' subject material too, especially in Physics. Hearing about the structure of a root hair cell for an hour, though, just makes me want to self harm.

I think Philosophy and Science have a great deal in common, and are best when working alongside each other. If I ever said Philosophy was the best degree then I was wrong, there is one degree, which I know Oxford do, which is definitively the best degree available in this country for those seeking intellectual nirvana: BA Physics and Philosophy.

Posted from TSR Mobile


What a joke.

Any comparison in complexity between physics and any non-trivial science (including more specialized subsets like electrical engineering) is in formal (symbolic) logic modules, which only form part of philosophy courses, yet are expanded in the former subjects.

The bulk of that perceived "difficulty" in philosophy, lies in the the inappropriateness of language to uphold logical formality.

It requires a good command in language even to express (relatively) logically trivial ideas, which would be simply and rigorously lain using formal (symbolic) language.

This is partly the reason why philosophy can never reach the complexity of Maths, and other similar sciences.

Secondly, Maths (and other sciences e.g. physics) open far more doors than philosophy full stop.

No philosopher can become a quant, and I would assert that junior quants have far greater facility with complex abstraction than their philosophical counterparts - i.e. they're much smarter.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by GoingToBurst
It is very rare in ANY degree to ever submit an opinion without reasoning. Academic papers require evidence and failure to do so would likely result in a fail and/or plagiarism accusation. Philosophy isn't the only degree that requires you to use other work and allow it to develop your own ideas.

Now, if you could continue making your point without belittling degrees that you have obviously never done before, then I would maybe respect your views a bit more. You can't argue that philosophy is any more complex and valuable than any other degree, especially when you have no experience in those degrees. Unless of course, you want to provide me with the formal logic and extensive reasoning you keep banging on about?


Hey dude, no need to be upset. I'm sorry, that comment was ill-formed. I did English for A Level, and it's a beautiful subject (the ultimate expression of psychology, history and philosophy).

I'm afraid having no experience of other degrees does nothing, however, to undermine my judgement of them. If everyone's opinion were only validated by first-hand experience, it would undermine most of human knowledge. History would be destroyed in one fell swoop, there would be no point using photographic evidence because you 'weren't really there' etc. It's like saying you can't possibly understand what Roman gladiatorial fights were like because you weren't in the audience, despite extensive literary evidence from the period to guide your understanding.

The point I worded poorly in your quote was intended to refer to the complexity of the reasoning required. No conclusion in English, for example, is so precise as to require formal logic to set it out. This is just a fact. But I don't want to go into this, it's just irrelevant to the discussion. I try to big-up Philosophy, because people often ignore it, but I love the other humanities too, and I love what they can do for people. I'm sure you'll agree with that, at least.





Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by skeptical_john
I'm also a philosophy student who is very much interesting in maths/science. You might like this from Peter Boghossian
http://www.philosophersmag.com/index.php/tpm-mag-articles/11-essays/131-want-to-be-good-at-philosophy-study-maths-and-science


That's very interesting. As I said earlier, mathematicians often make the best philosophers. So go you!

Posted from TSR Mobile

Quick Reply

Latest